What is it about Christians and us?

Scofflaw

Well, the Christians keep asking this on the Christianity forum - why are we over there? What is it about the Christians (and perhaps particularly the creationists) that so fascinates us?

Are we proselytising? Would any of us actually get a sense of satisfaction if wolfsbane, or Brian, abandoned their faith? If JC abandoned madness for reason?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo

Guilty. I've just been over in the Christianity forum reading some of that monster 240+ page thread - wowee! :eek:

I don't want anyone to abandon their beliefs, I'd rather those that do so just stopped chanting the "acknowledge Jesus Christ as your saviour & you won't burn for all eternity in Hell" sentiments which I find rather, well, scarily zelously cartoonesque tbh.

I can't speak for any other athiest, obviously, but I find myself strangely drawn to learn about the views others hold & why they hold them. Some of the views make sense, some don't. I'm perfectly willing to hold my hands up & say "I don't know" how to answer some of the big questions but then I am equally happy with my not knowing & distinctly uncomfortable with substituting every "I don't know" with "God did it". I guess the unwavering belief that "because the Bible says so" or "God did it" that some people have just facinates me because it's something I've never had & therefor something I have never understood.

Some days I think life would just be so much easier if I was a thiest but I just seem incapable of making that leap...:)

2Scoops

I think it might be that atheists see their position as infinitely more logical and supportable than the idea that Christian faith is 'real,' for want of a better word. In a situation like that, it's a fairly natural response to try to convince people to agree with you by setting out the most compelling argument as you see it and hoping they 'get it.'

Of course, then there's the inevitable frustration when the argument is not accepted and the equally frustrating and unsatisfying reasons why it is not accepted. Maybe it's seen as a challenge? The irony is that Christians will find their points equally absurd, though for different reasons. It's all futile, if anyone managed to convert Brian, Wolfsbane et al. it would be *ahem* a miracle:)

SonOfPerdition

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the Christians keep asking this on the Christianity forum - why are we over there? What is it about the Christians (and perhaps particularly the creationists) that so fascinates us?

Are we proselytising? Would any of us actually get a sense of satisfaction if wolfsbane, or Brian, abandoned their faith? If JC abandoned madness for reason?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I see nothing of interest in many of the christian threads, now and then i have a browse and see the same kind of thoughts i once had. I can kind of understand their mis guided but mainly harmless thinking, and it bores me quickly.

Creationists on the other hand ... those crazy bastards amuse me for hours.

ballsofire23

We live life, procreate and there's nothing more to our existence. We grow old and our children want us in some cases dead quick for insurance.
That's a reality and logical reality.
Life is about living nothing else. We die that's it. We don't mean anything other than a link in a chain that came from a physical explainable event and is going to x? uknown.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the Christians keep asking this on the Christianity forum - why are we over there? What is it about the Christians (and perhaps particularly the creationists) that so fascinates us?

Are we proselytising? Would any of us actually get a sense of satisfaction if wolfsbane, or Brian, abandoned their faith? If JC abandoned madness for reason?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Speaking as someone who comes into contact with Creationism and fundamentalist religious belief (Muslim and Christian) in the "real world", I actually find debating with Christians on matters in the forum to be quite educational. To evaluate and fine tune ones position one must have it challenged. That works for both sides of the coin

I don't really care if any of them abandon their faith, I don't even think any of them will ever agree with us. But I do care that fundamentalist religion seems to be on the rise in Europe and America, and the arguments that we encounter on this limited community of internet nerds may unfortunately be encountered back out in the real world all too often in the future where it does actually matter.

As someone once said "Know your enemy"

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Speaking as someone who comes into contact with Creationism and fundamentalist religious belief (Muslim and Christian) in the "real world", I actually find debating with Christians on matters in the forum to be quite educational. To evaluate and fine tune ones position one must have it challenged. That works for both sides of the coin

I don't really care if any of them abandon their faith, I don't even think any of them will ever agree with us. But I do care that fundamentalist religion seems to be on the rise in Europe and America, and the arguments that we encounter on this limited community of internet nerds may unfortunately be encountered back out in the real world all too often in the future where it does actually matter.

As someone once said "Know your enemy"

Mmm. Are you about to give up on JC? I begin to find his complete inability to actually string two thoughts together less amusing than I did, myself...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

As someone once said "Know your enemy"

I think 'enemy' is a tad strong, but I acknowledge the sentiment.

Hopefully I can crave an indulgence to express this thought quickly and loosely - I feel people here will understand what I'm getting at and be able to edit out any simplification.

The reaction of many people to us knowing more about stuff seems to be to retreat further into 'faith'. I take it when that Bishop did his Bible calculation of the world being 10,000 years old, it was still a reasonable proposition for an educated person to hold. You'd look at the world around you, guess that all of this had to be put there by some supreme act of creation, and without any obvious answer from elsewhere it would be no more than commonsense to say 'God', in the shape of whatever religion you had been told about.

Now we have reasonable explanations that even non-specialists like myself can understand in principle, and historical studies into the origins of religion that make 'God' in the sense of any organised religion seem less credible. That should, and frequently does, mean that people either leave their faith or interpret it in a broad and non-literal way. But, for others, it means they actually choose (sometimes explicitly) to believe this or that religious text ahead of what is reasonably apparent.

That thought process is something I would be interested in understanding. I don't know if it ever will, but I sort of hope things will become clearer from discussion and it might be possible to identify the fault line(s) that put a person on this or that side of belief.

hairyheretic

Wicknight wrote:

As someone once said "Know your enemy"

Sun Tzu I believe. "Know your enemy and know yourself, and in 100 battles you will never know defeat."

Applies equally well to intellectual battles.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Mmm. Are you about to give up on JC? I begin to find his complete inability to actually string two thoughts together less amusing than I did, myself...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Certainly thinking about it.

He seems to not mind simply abandoning his previous positions and simply stating something contradictory to what he had already said to get out of having to support anything.

The kind of last straw for me was when he started doing it with the Bible. I can see myself getting draw into an argument over the question of if the Bible says God exists in the future (2000 years of Christian scholars say it does), something I don't even care about at the end of which I imagine he will go away for a few days and come back arguing something else. He did that with the idea that the imperfections in life rule out a perfect designer. When he gets really stuck he just bails out and then sticks his head up a few days later.

I think he has said all the nonsense he is going to say. The worrying thing is that I think he knows he is talking nonsense, but posters such as Wolfsbane don't. One weeps for the future of humanity

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly thinking about it.

He seems to not mind simply abandoning his previous positions and simply stating something contradictory to what he had already said to get out of having to support anything.

The kind of last straw for me was when he started doing it with the Bible. I can see myself getting draw into an argument over the question of if the Bible says God exists in the future (2000 years of Christian scholars say it does), something I don't even care about at the end of which I imagine he will go away for a few days and come back arguing something else. He did that with the idea that the imperfections in life rule out a perfect designer. When he gets really stuck he just bails out and then sticks his head up a few days later.

I think he has said all the nonsense he is going to say. The worrying thing is that I think he knows he is talking nonsense, but posters such as Wolfsbane don't. One weeps for the future of humanity

He might just suffer from very advanced compartmentalisation, in that he never ever compares two ideas to see if they contradict each other. I know he understands the idea that ideas contradicting each other is a bad thing, since he constantly claims that 'this' or 'that' - the Bible, his trousers, something he doesn't understand, whatever - contradicts 'evolutionism'.

I think it's part of what makes creationists so endlessly fascinating. If you're the type of person who constantly compares and contrasts ideas , it's almost impossible to imagine that there are people who simply don't, so you keep looking for their rationale - the logic that allows them to accept two 'apparently' contradictory ideas.

If the creationist finds an idea agreeable, most actually seem to just pick it up and slot it away in a box of its own. A few, like wolfsbane (who is capable of comparing ideas), seem to simply put their heads down and do a Jennifer Aniston "here comes the science bit" any time they see an argument that impinges on their beliefs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the Christians keep asking this on the Christianity forum - why are we over there? What is it about the Christians (and perhaps particularly the creationists) that so fascinates us?

Are we proselytising? Would any of us actually get a sense of satisfaction if wolfsbane, or Brian, abandoned their faith? If JC abandoned madness for reason?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I guess I originally started posting here in the Creationism thread after reading it for a while. However I soon gave up on it as it became quickly apparent that creationists are beyond debate. They've fully invested in their faith and will go to any extreme to justify it. JC's senseless rambling and random copying and pasting is typical of this. He will do anything to save his soul. The creationists seem to relish the opportunity to be publicly humiliated by "Evolutionists" (who they no doubt see as representing the complete scientific community) because that in some bizzare way gives them some sort equal footing.

As regards posting in the other threads here, I think it comes from my annoyance with the influence of religion, specifically Christianity, in our society and educational system. I find the unquestioned respect of religion in Ireland in need of serious criticism in the same way that any political movement would be expected to be addressed. So here I am and I will throw in my 2 cents when I see think people are talking nonsense and not getting properly told so.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the Christians keep asking this on the Christianity forum - why are we over there? What is it about the Christians (and perhaps particularly the creationists) that so fascinates us?

At the risk of it sounding a bit schoolyard-ish, I think there's a large amount of "they started it" at play.

Those who seem to attack Christianity invariably have a bad experience they are reacting to. Whether its the Irish Catholic who has become disillusioned with their faith and now holds all Christians accountable for the ills of the Catholic church, or the scientist who has been disgusted by the attempts of Creationists to undermine those aspects of science they find anathema to their beliefs....those who engage in such debates from the atheist or agnostic side of things seem mostly to be "striking back" rather than "striking out".

That and I'm trying to understand what I assume to be grown adults suggesting that there is some sort of global conspiracy amongst the scientific to deliberately undermine the godliness of good Christians....but only in some scientific fields.

Would any of us actually get a sense of satisfaction if wolfsbane, or Brian, abandoned their faith?

Personally, I don't want any of them to abandon their faith.

I'm more interested in seeing if any Christian who shares their over-reaching faith (i.e. is a Christian) will stand up and decry the arguments being presented in the name of Christianity.

bonkey

5uspect wrote:

He will do anything to save his soul.

But if he knows that he's being deceptive, then he's trying to save his soul through sinning.

5uspect

Thats the weird thing. He has forced himself to believe anything that proves his world view. Tho maybe "forced" is too strong, he simply accepts anything that he can use in the "good fight" against the deniers of of Christ. He justifies it in his strange way by using the uncertainty of science as a weapon against it.

The example of his dishonest insertion of vast chunks of Wikipedia etc into his posts as his own prose comes to mind. This is plagiarism which is stealing which is a sin.

Zombrex

In the God Delusion Dawkins talks about religion as a miss firing of our evolutionary systems. He mentions a few, but an interesting one was the miss firing of the system set up for love and relationships.

I suppose trying to convince JC or Wolfsbane or Jakkass that their religion is full of flaws would be kinda like trying to convince someone that their girlfriend is actually a bit ugly.

Even if they secretly think that about their girlfriend themselves people will hide this form themselves, feeling that what they get out of the relationship out weighs the flaws and to be true to the idea of love one must accept even what they don't actually accept.

This would explain why one could constantly argue, often from ridiculous positions, and never waver from their unquestioning devotion to their faith.

It could also explain why theists often get very upset when challenged, the same way someone would get upset if you said "No, but seriously she is a bit of a minger isn't she" From their point of view it isn't a cool rational statement, it is an attack on something they hold dear.

5uspect

Yeah you see that all the time, even dare I say it, in science.
You get people hopelessly attached to different theories of all kinds.
Dawkins often quotes the story of one of his old professors being gracious when having his pet theory disproved (its defintely in The Root of All Evil).

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

In the God Delusion Dawkins talks about religion as a miss firing of our evolutionary systems.

I've never been happy about the Dawkins' 'misfiring' argument, as I think its telling us what we want to hear. We don't want to discover that religion persists because it actually brings some evolutionary advantage.

For the sake of argument, it could well be the case that religion confers an evolutionary advantage by giving people access to a ready-made group support system. Maybe you are better off from an evolutionary perspective being wrong but part of a cohesive group than being right but with no real wider group allegience to draw on.

Religion, to my mind, does not have to be true to be useful from an evolutionary perspective.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I've never been happy about the Dawkins' 'misfiring' argument, as I think its telling us what we want to hear. We don't want to discover that religion persists because it actually brings some evolutionary advantage.

For the sake of argument, it could well be the case that religion confers an evolutionary advantage by giving people access to a ready-made group support system. Maybe you are better off from an evolutionary perspective being wrong but part of a cohesive group than being right but with no real wider group allegience to draw on.

Religion, to my mind, does not have to be true to be useful from an evolutionary perspective.

I think you have to bear in mind that in every other group of animals studied, there have turned out to be multiple strategies. It is likely that rigidly sticking to the in-group is just one possible strategy. From the book I keep recommending, it looks like maybe 25% of humanity goes with this strategy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

From the book I keep recommending, it looks like maybe 25% of humanity goes with this strategy.

Fair enough, I'll read it and see where it leads.

magicbastarder

in my experience, it seems to be a very studenty thing to do, for an atheist to actively seek out christians to debate the finer points of science and theology.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

in my experience, it seems to be a very studenty thing to do, for an atheist to actively seek out christians to debate the finer points of science and theology.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

magicbastarder

students tend to be more zealous, before life jades them.

So Glad

THIS is what annoys me about Christians.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

students tend to be more zealous, before life jades them.

LOL .. that is a happy way to look at life

"I used to have high ideals too Timmy ... before I met your mother ... <groan>"

magicbastarder

to be a bit more serious, it takes a certain amount of optimism or arrogance to engage in such debate, thinking you're going to be able to win over your sparring partner. i've just noticed that students tend to do it more.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

to be a bit more serious, it takes a certain amount of optimism or arrogance to engage in such debate, thinking you're going to be able to win over your sparring partner. i've just noticed that students tend to do it more.

That does assume the ultimate purpose is to batter your partner into submission and an abandonment of their faith.

Sometimes the goal is simply a bit of "consciousness raising", getting others to view something in a different light, a way they have not thought of it before.

magicbastarder

granted, but i think it's a bit off to challenge them on their own turf - unless they welcome this; i'm not around long enough to know whether they do.

Dades

magicbastarder wrote:

unless they welcome this; i'm not around long enough to know whether they do.

They don't for the most part, which is why I tend to leave them be.

But as wicknight says, the goal only needs to be "consciousness raising" sometimes, for example atheism does not equate to a lack of morals.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That does assume the ultimate purpose is to batter your partner into submission and an abandonment of their faith.

Sometimes the goal is simply a bit of "consciousness raising", getting others to view something in a different light, a way they have not thought of it before.

Indeed, sometimes the purpose is to do the same for oneself. It's almost impossible to find out what one believes without discussion. That's partly why students do it, as well as for the reasons already given...unmitigatedly pompus though that sounds.

As to "challenging them on their own turf" - they don't come in here very much, and left to themselves they'd only attack each other over obscure points of doctrine.

cordially,
Scofflaw

magicbastarder

Scofflaw wrote:

As to "challenging them on their own turf" - they don't come in here very much, and left to themselves they'd only attack each other over obscure points of doctrine.

so you're doing them a favour?

Crucifix

I'm interested in discussing religion, but I'm not interested in debating it. Partially because I'm horribly inarticulate, but mainly because I don't like butting my head against a brickwall, and am not really interested in proselytising.
And I'm a student

Asiaprod

magicbastarder wrote:

so you're doing them a favour?

No. Perhapse, challenging them to challeng themselves.

magicbastarder

and if they came in here challenging atheists to open their hearts to jesus, would you welcome them?

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

and if they came in here challenging atheists to open their hearts to jesus, would you welcome them?

Since that's what they mostly do to us in the Christianity forum, I can't see why not.

Usually we only get involved in the more general threads. If people wish to discuss doctrine, or their experiences, we usually stay out of it. The original poster in a thread can also ask atheists to stay out of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

granted, but i think it's a bit off to challenge them on their own turf - unless they welcome this; i'm not around long enough to know whether they do.

Well the forum is for discussing issues around Christianity. Like it or not (i personally don't like it) Christianity is a major force in the world, and its probably the best forum to discuss things like Biblical Creationism or Christian morality. I don't tend to discuss the very Christian stuff, like should a Catholic marry a protestant or anything like that because it doesn't effect the wider world much and for the most part I don't care.

But something Creationism, which enters into science, or Biblical morality, which enters into ethics and morality, do effect the wider world.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

and if they came in here challenging atheists to open their hearts to jesus, would you welcome them?

Of course. In the same way the lion "welcomes" the gazelle

non-atheists (christians, muslims etc .. even UFO worshippers, if that is the right term) do come here quite a bit, normally to say something like evolution is nonsense and that God must exist or something like that. Or to say that atheists have no morals and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

They normally don't last very long though as their faulty logic and ridiculous reasoning are quickly ripped to shreds on this forum, since people don't hold back when exposing their beliefs as logical nonsense on this forum.

magicbastarder

Wicknight wrote:

non-atheists (christians, muslims etc .. even UFO worshippers, if that is the right term) do come here quite a bit, normally to say something like evolution is nonsense and that God must exist or something like that. Or to say that atheists have no morals and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

surely this is the forum for such debates?
atheism is not specifically a lack of belief in a christian god; it's also lack of belief in all gods. so it's bigger than a simple focus on christianity. let mohammed come to the mountain, so to speak.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

surely this is the forum for such debates?
atheism is not specifically a lack of belief in a christian god; it's also lack of belief in all gods. so it's bigger than a simple focus on christianity. let mohammed come to the mountain, so to speak.

I've no problem with them coming here with these types of topics, and as I said we get not just Christians in here, but Muslims and others.

They just shouldn't think that people will skirt around their beliefs in here. Which they often don't like. Normally they just leave muttering something about the Bible/Quran and how we will all be sorry when we eventually meet God/Allah etc.

Dades

Originally Posted by Wicknight
non-atheists (christians, muslims etc .. even UFO worshippers, if that is the right term) do come here quite a bit, normally to say something like evolution is nonsense and that God must exist or something like that. Or to say that atheists have no morals and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

magicbastarder wrote:

surely this is the forum for such debates?

This is a forum that welcomes such challenges, although - as with life - the forum's purpose is somewhat subjective.

Scofflaw

magicbastarder wrote:

surely this is the forum for such debates?
atheism is not specifically a lack of belief in a christian god; it's also lack of belief in all gods. so it's bigger than a simple focus on christianity. let mohammed come to the mountain, so to speak.

Ironically, we've pretty much had that debate over in the Christianity forum, as well.

As I said in that debate, my fundamental brief in the religious fora tends to be defence of science, and defence of secularism, rather than defence of atheism or assaults on Christianity. It's hard for me to ignore people spreading rubbish about "the war on Christmas", or "how evolution is just a theory" without response. Nor do I believe it's in anyone's interests to allow this kind of thing to spread without vigorous opposition.

Whether one is achieving all that much by opposing it here is a separate question, but also pretty irrelevant - one opposes it where one finds it.

We do find more of that kind of thing on the Christianity thread than elsewhere, although one does find it on the Islam forum. However, the Islam forum has much stricter rules, and it is quite hard to debate as an atheist there without getting banned (hats off to Schuhart), plus Islam is numerically insignificant in Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

As I said in that debate, my fundamental brief in the religious fora tends to be defence of science, and defence of secularism, rather than defence of atheism or assaults on Christianity. It's hard for me to ignore people spreading rubbish about "the war on Christmas", or "how evolution is just a theory" without response. Nor do I believe it's in anyone's interests to allow this kind of thing to spread without vigorous opposition.

So there is a problem with moderation in the Christianity Forum? While BC is fair to us and our arguments he cannot be trusted to provide objective moderation regarding the scientific accuracy of the claims of some posters there. I'm sure he would be the first to admit that he's not scientifically minded so the input of the scientifically minded atheists can only be a welcome thing. That is of course if its provided without an agenda to convert.

And yes, I'm a student, I like to argue.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

So there is a problem with moderation in the Christianity Forum? While BC is fair to us and our arguments he cannot be trusted to provide objective moderation regarding the scientific accuracy of the claims of some posters there. I'm sure he would be the first to admit that he's not scientifically minded so the input of the scientifically minded atheists can only be a welcome thing. That is of course if its provided without an agenda to convert.

I really wouldn't say there's a problem with the moderation, myself. BC is very fair - indeed, I would say that he is quite generous in interpreting the charter.

Having said that, I certainly restrain myself on the Christianity forum where I wouldn't here. If some of the arguments that crop up there cropped up here instead, I would be far less kindly to the perpetrators. Perhaps that is why we end up holding such discussions in their forum rather than ours.

5uspect wrote:

And yes, I'm a student, I like to argue.

Heck. Who doesn't? And if they don't, what on earth are they doing on an Internet forum for religion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

I really wouldn't say there's a problem with the moderation, myself. BC is very fair - indeed, I would say that he is quite generous in interpreting the charter.

I agree Brian is very fair, and credit must go to him for that. my problem is his tolerance of unscientific nonsense.
Tho I shouldn't really expect such things on a religious forum.

Scofflaw wrote:

Heck. Who doesn't? And if they don't, what on earth are they doing on an Internet forum for religion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Looking for prayer requests, discussing their love of their personal deities, organising soup kitchens for the poor, charity. I dunno, religious stuff.

lostexpectation

didn't we do this thread less then a month ago, and we all the same answer we give now,cos most of use to be theoratically used to chistians and most technicaly still are listed as such we still live in 'christian country'

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

I agree Brian is very fair, and credit must go to him for that. my problem is his tolerance of unscientific nonsense.
Tho I shouldn't really expect such things on a religious forum.

Particularly not since Brian believes and propounds it himself! Although, frankly, if unscientific nonsense wasn't tolerated on the religious fora, I wouldn't be bothered with them at all...

lostexpectation wrote:

didn't we do this thread less then a month ago, and we all the same answer we give now,cos most of use to be theoratically used to chistians and most technicaly still are listed as such we still live in 'christian country'

Pretty much.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

(hats off to Schuhart)

All praise is praise of Allah, as nothing happens but he wills it.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

All praise is praise of Allah, as nothing happens but he wills it.

Well, you'll have that, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

magicbastarder wrote:

and if they came in here challenging atheists to open their hearts to jesus, would you welcome them?

I would welcome them here, we do welcome them here. But opening my heart to their understanding of Jesus would not happen.
I like many on this forum started my life a christian and progressed to what I am today. I would say it is much easier to convert a non christian to the fold than it would be to reconvert a strayed sheep back.
My issue is not with their worshiping their god, it is the implication that what they believe in (or missunderstand) directly impacts my world negatively. And of course the burn in hell for all eternity bit, the atonement for sins bit ( in my case Karma vs Grace), and the issue of free will.

Zillah

magicbastarder wrote:

and if they came in here challenging atheists to open their hearts to jesus, would you welcome them?

With open arms. Then the combined might of the regular posters would effortlessly annihilate their arguments, they'd either post again in a pointless fashion or leave.

The reason for this is that it is impossible to defend religious positions, they're inherently irrational; based on faith or falsehoods. As James Randi said, "I always have an out, I'm not wrong."

magicbastarder

Scofflaw wrote:

It's hard for me to ignore people spreading rubbish about ... "how evolution is just a theory" without response. Nor do I believe it's in anyone's interests to allow this kind of thing to spread without vigorous opposition.

well, this is where we disagree. all i think this creates is a lot of hot air.