This Site Is Called Atheist Republic So Why Do Christians Come Here?

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Algebe's picture
@Lion IRC:

@Lion IRC:

Welcome to the Debate Room.

I look forward to hearing you defend theism and Christianity, etc. They are most definitely on trial here.

cranky47's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

Speak for yourself sonny. (sniff)

We already have a plethora of anti intellectual, anti science and anti reason apologists. These good folks consistently demonstrate an ignorance of the history of their own religion.EG Insisting the New Testament is history.

Plus an ignorance of the basics of scientific method as well as complete ignorance of reasoned discussion.

I guess these people feel a duty to try to convert atheists ,a based on something Jesus is alleged to have said.

Sadly, there are two salient points our little friends/irritants/comic relief/chew toys are too arrogant or ignorant to consider:

(1). Many of the members here are former Christians who individually and collectively know far more about scriptures and the history of Christianity than they.

(2) That religious belief is based on faith ,(belief without seeing) not reason . So far, I've never seen anyone justify faith with reason. That waste of many a good mind, apologetics, has a good try.

I guess those two points especially are in part why I find these christian proselytisers arrogant , ignorant, patronising and intellectually dishonest. Not to mention as dull as dishwater due to the broken record arguments they present.

OF COURSE, our newest little friend may be the exception, and present a new and interesting approach. However,I'm not holding my breath .

PS Algebe l was not having a go at you, I was being facetious. That's the first sentence. The rest is serious .

Thought for the day "Be a misanthrope, hate everyone on sight. Saves SO much time" (Tarquin St John Shagnasty)

Algebe's picture
@cranky47:Speak for yourself

@cranky47:Speak for yourself sonny. (sniff)

Johnson was president when I was last called "sonny", so I'll take it as a compliment!

cranky47's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe

I was visiting my 92 year old mum at the aged home in which she was an inmate. early last year. Passed a very old lady in the passage. I had Major with me ,and he barked. The really old lady said "Do make your dog keep quiet young man"

Last time I was called 'sonny' was when I was 16, in 1963, by my first boss. At least. I trained him not to whistle for me .

He: " Didn't you hear me whistling ? "

Me" All I heard was some one whistling for their dog"

Then it became "OI! SONNY!"--This was my first paying holiday job. A a service (gas) station, 100 miles from home. I worked a 70-80 hour week**. I received my board and six pounds ten shillings a week ($AU13) .

** This was a country station with often hours between customers, so I didn't feel exploited. .

LogicFTW's picture
@Lion IRC

@Lion IRC

Welcome to the forums! Always welcome new folks to chat with, that are interested in debate.

Do you have any demonstrable evidence for any of your god ideas?

Italianish's picture
I am

I am
Here with an open mind.. I still believe in Jesus from
Time to time.
However I am not here to argue against anyone (atheist or agnostic) about the inconsistencies in the Bible.. I see them too.
My mind is indoctrinated.
I’m looking for a way out where the compelling truth of logic and understanding will help Me to find what You’re all trying to
Teach and have been teaching all along.
I apologize if I have been obnoxious, my mind is actually more than just indoctrinated by external forces.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Italianish

@Italianish

I'm guessing you feel like the carpet has been pulled out from under you. All I can offer you is that I think that is a normal response.

David Killens's picture
@ Italianish

@ Italianish

I am not offended. The bottom line is that you are attempting to be honest with yourself, and you are in a genuine search to discover what is real, or not.

There will always be bumps in that road.

Personally I hold the opinion that religion, and especially christianity is the most effective con game inflicted on humanity. Regardless if my opinion carries any weight, you have been heavily indoctrinated for most of your life into a belief system with no counter arguement or second option.

Now that you are exploring other positions and options, I applaud you for being honest with yourself.

The point is that for almost anyone who has spent years in the clutch of religion, just walking away is almost impossible. For many it is a long and painful process, with intellectual and emotional turmoil constantly clouding your thoughts.

Italianish, we may differ in opinions, and I apologize if I offended you with any personal attacks. It is never my intent to attack the person, just the argument. But sometimes emotions get the better of me. I am not creating an excuse, just an explanation. I am responsible for my actions.

Cognostic's picture
So you GET HONEST and you

So you GET HONEST and you start a thread with ONE. ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON WY YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS. ONE Don't be like most theists and muddy the water with a thousand assertions in a mile long post. We already have people doing that. Apollo, Jo, etc.... If you really want to examine a belief: State the belief as clearly as you can. I believe in Jesus because (PICK YOUR BEST REASON AND INSERT IT HERE.) Once we are done with that, we move on to the next reason. There is enough talent around this place to address every single concern you have concerning God or gods. All you need do is stay focused and not jump all over the frigging globe like most theists.

Whitefire13's picture
@Italianish

@Italianish
Been there. Some easily move past it. Some were never indoctrinated and don’t have the internal experience of “brain recording playback time”. I’ll never forget the phone conversation with my mother when she started (after 3 years of my being disfellowshipped) asking if I’d been punished enough, and I should start going back to the Kingdom Hall. I flat out told her I didn’t believe the bible. The shock wave was “heard” through the phone line as she realized I wasn’t “coming back” - but I made it clear it was her choice not to talk to me, because my door was always open (it had to somewhat shut eventually when I learnt after repeated lessons that she’d only talk to me when she needed money; a consequence of not planning for the future because Armageddon is coming).

I weaned myself off of “habits” (ie prayer) that provided an emotional comfort. Now I’m comfortable - 20 years later - in my full fledged disbelief in myth. Comfortable with death. Comfortable with not “knowing”. Comfortable in being a human.

Lion IRC's picture
Would the afterlife be proof?

Would the afterlife be proof?

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "Would the

Lion IRC "Would the afterlife be proof?"

Would not being able to see an invisible unicorn prove it is invisible?

You haven't been able to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, if you had any credible objective evidence for an afterlife, why on earth would you have kept it quiet until now?

Whitefire13's picture
@Lion

@Lion... Would the afterlife be proof?

This is where from reading posts and being a member I have found a “communication” gap.

In my previous religious life, we took (pride isn’t the right word, maybe “satisfaction”) in being “united in thought”. It was encouraged to have the “mind of Christ” and to be Christ “like”. I’d say something spiritual and everyone would agree.

Scientists and those who are more science minded like to “peer review” proposals. This means making a claim, presenting evidence that can be verified/tested/falsified. Then they publish their paper and all the other scientists rip it to shreds. That’s the process. If it survives being ripped to shreds the other scientists begin a process of acceptance - but not full acceptance.

What I have noticed time and time again is this process is used and it can feel like an attack - which it is...but it’s an attack on the “claim” or “idea”. Sometimes it can move into an attack on the person - sometimes justifiably so.

I’m watching with a sparkle as you opened a can of worms.

Calilasseia's picture
Would the afterlife be proof?

Would the afterlife be proof?

No. It's a testimony to the palsying effects of supernaturalism, that you cannot work out from first principles why this is the case.

Let's leave aside for the moment, that the existence of an "afterlife" is another of those unsupported supernaturalist assertions, that has, at bottom, never been accompanied by anything better than "my mythology says so, therefore it's true". Instead, let's consider the possibilities that arise, if ever genuine evidence for an "afterlife" is alighted upon.

One of those possibilities, is that any "afterlife" that actually exists, could be just as much a product of blind, impersonal forces as gravity or chemical reactions. Indeed, given that blind, impersonal forces have been demonstrated to underpin every observable entity and interaction thus far alighted upon, there's no reason for that precedent to be broken. Furthermore, that "afterlife", under the aegis of the requisite blind, impersonal forces, could operate in a manner akin to that asserted by various Eastern religions, in which reincarnation plays a role - it could be simply a giant recycling plant for sentiences.

Which of course brings us back yet again to that essential and fatal flaw in the whole supernaturalist enterprise, namely, that it has no data to offer, and instead only has unsupported assertions by the truckload to present. Before the inevitable tiresome apologetics are peddled here, to the effect that your favourite mythology purportedly constitutes the "data", no it doesn't. It's merely evidence that a bunch of pre-scientific nomads made shit up, in order to render the universe comprehensible to their narrow, parochial minds, and moreover, included within that made up shit assertions that are known in the present day not merely to be plain, flat, wrong, but absurd and risible.

Indeed, one serious central criticism of the mythology in question, is the very fact that assertions known to be wrong are present therein. The idea that a fantastically gifted magic entity, purportedly responsible for fabricating an entire universe, with the colossal gifts of thought and action this implies, would allow elementary and risible errors of this sort to be attributed thereto, is a non-starter. Any genuine sentient fabricator of a universe, one intent upon dispensing a message to us humans after said synthesis exercise, would subject the dispensation of that message to ruthless proofreading to weed out those errors, and ensure that the message dispensed was verifiably error free. Especially in the context of the assertion that the entity in question purportedly possesses "perfect foreknowledge" of the future, and would, upon that assertion being true, know in advance that any errors in any text attributed to that entity would be discovered by humans, and subject to critique. Problematic though that assertion is in its own right, from the standpoint of proper discourse, that assertion acquires a lethal utility value with respect to the critique presented here, and in providing that lethal utility value, demonstrates once again how intellectual rigor is, all too often, completely absent from the business of fabricating a mythology.

Indeed, I am on record here and elsewhere, as questioning why an entity of this sort, would choose mythology as a vehicle for its purported "message", given the rampant unreliability of mythology from an epistemological standpoint. Mythologies, of course, are not written in a complete vacuum, and have to include at least some content indicating at least some basic effort to connect with observational reality, if said content is not to be considered laughable, but the existence within mythologies of numerous unsupported assertions, several of a fantastic nature, is practically a defining trait of what a mythology is. An entity capable of fabricating an entire universe would possess the requisite knowledge of this, and would, if honestly intending to dispense an important message, choose a different medium for the purpose. Not least because mythologies also have a habit of being written, either by accident or design, in obscurantist prose whose underlying intent would appear to be to obfuscate rather than inform.

For that matter, if I was the god type entity in question, I wouldn't want humans to have faith in me at all - I would want them to be equipped with the tools to determine for themselves whether or not any message I was presenting was sound. In stark contrast to the rampantly anti-intellectual foundations of your mythology, within whose pages knowledge and learning are regarded as a pestilence to be stamped upon, I would make the acquisition of knowledge and learning a virtue to be pursued with unceasing vigour. I would also make it a requirement of any text attributed to me, to contain detailed descriptions of reliable and repeatable experiments that could be performed, once the humans in question acquired the relevant level of technological advancement, so that as humans progressed, they would be able to determine for themselves, that the message I was presenting was something other than made up shit. As a corollary, although the text in question would initially possess a strangely mythological character to the first generation exposed thereto, the step by step presentation of experiments to be performed would, over time, reduce the mythological character of that text, and the text would increasingly become a bona fide textbook instead of a mythology. A text of this sort would, by its very nature, force people to sit up and take notice, and be seen as increasingly worthy of consideration with the march of human progress, instead of being viewed over time as the product of increasingly obsolescent and primitive thinking.

The mere fact that I, as a limited human with limited capabilities, can devise a better means for a god type entity to dispense any "message" it has for us, should be telling you something important here. As should the fact that I was able, from first principles, to devise an alternative view of your merely asserted "afterlife".

Whitefire13's picture
@ Calilasseia ...” the step

@ Calilasseia ...” the step by step presentation of experiments to be performed would, over time, reduce the mythological character of that text, and the text would increasingly become a bona fide textbook instead of a mythology”

I love that idea... gonna put this in my memory bank.
Way better than my “pod” idea...enter pod, talk to being on other side of pod, being imparts information...wait, wait...jeesusss I can be dumb. I’m thinking of “Blind Love”...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.