This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So what do you think the atheist worldview is?

#41rick alveradoPosted 7/15/2013 4:18:31 PM
Polish_Crusader posted...
To be dead honest... going by the first 4 pages, i dont see this topic getting anywhere. It went from answering a somewhat valid question to- "i think christianity/atheism is this or that". The atheist fill the this or that with something negative, the christians dont.


Stop trying to sound more "logical" than the other person. Focus on facts. The bible states what a follower of jesus is. The bible states what a christian is. I posted it. I dont care what your opinions are or what you guys can agree to. The truth is not a democracy.


Did you mean to post this in the defining a Christian topic?
#42_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/15/2013 4:29:26 PM
rick alverado posted...
Polish_Crusader posted...
To be dead honest... going by the first 4 pages, i dont see this topic getting anywhere. It went from answering a somewhat valid question to- "i think christianity/atheism is this or that". The atheist fill the this or that with something negative, the christians dont.


Stop trying to sound more "logical" than the other person. Focus on facts. The bible states what a follower of jesus is. The bible states what a christian is. I posted it. I dont care what your opinions are or what you guys can agree to. The truth is not a democracy.


Did you mean to post this in the defining a Christian topic?


doubt it because he said '4' pages and no post per pages setting could let you have 4 pages on that topic. it's just polish not making any sense, as usual.

what i am surprised is how many responses aren't that atheists just wanna sin. how unbiblical. do you even romans 1?
---
DarkContractor
#43Faust_8Posted 7/15/2013 5:52:50 PM
kozlo100 posted...
There is a difference between rejecting a belief because it doesn't seem true, and rejecting a belief because it is mutually exclusive to beliefs you hold to be true.

I believe that is what C_Mat was getting at.


True, but I would like to think that they have more reasons to reject their claims aside from "well I already think something else."

Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit?
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#44myzz7Posted 7/15/2013 6:49:35 PM(edited)
C_Mat posted...

So from this post alone, you had 3.5 sentences that said you don't believe in Christianity because you personally dislike the conclusions it leads to, and .5 sentences that said you don't believe in Christianity because you don't accept the proof for it. In other words, 7/8 of your argument against Christianity being true was based on your personal feelings about it rather than fact. Is this an accurate representation of why you reject Christianity?


This topic was made with the intention of people giving their evaluations on the matter; hence the 'you' in the topic title. I see, however, that your intention is to muddle the line between facts and expanding estimates, regardless if they're logically made in consonance with the fact. In challenge to your first point, I have to ask, is Christianity focused on this life as an end in itself or eternity beyond death? If the answer is the latter, than I wasn't simply expositing on a personal inclination of mine, cut off from the actual fact that Christianity does have the emphasis on eternity. In logic, its either or, Christianity cannot juggle both simultaneously in equal importance to one another.

In establishing that which is--the fundamental approach to Christianity--I further commentate the implications of such a philosophy and what it neglects in its misguided prioritization. This is a very wide subject, and Christian doctrine does cater to human activities in a limited scope, yet in my very first sentence I specifically spoke of its fundamental focus, not its incidentals. I stand by my evaluations, and proven them by deductive reasoning.

In my last line about Christianity's burden of proof, and psyche, observe how I first established the fact Christianity has never put forth a demonstrable proof for its beliefs. If something cannot be proven, and isn't innocuous enough to stay a floating abstraction but dictates what a person should value in his most basic philosophy, then it is not an inaccurate comment to say that it will drag upon a person's psyche. Depending on how much a person tries to follow it, and his mental capacity to endure it, Christianity could do much more than 'drag' upon a person's temperament because a rational reason isn't possible to justify it.
---
http://s10.postimage.org/mxioonsd1/gildavatar.gif
#45_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/15/2013 6:27:11 PM
kozlo100 posted...
There is a difference between rejecting a belief because it doesn't seem true, and rejecting a belief because it is mutually exclusive to beliefs you hold to be true.

I believe that is what C_Mat was getting at.


seems like semantics, really. you might say he needs to learn that the motivations behind him rejecting Islam are the same as Muslims rejecting Christianity.
---
DarkContractor
#46kozlo100Posted 7/16/2013 8:16:57 AM(edited)
Faust_8 posted...
True, but I would like to think that they have more reasons to reject their claims aside from "well I already think something else."


You don't really get much better reasons to reject something than knowing something mutually exclusive to it is true. When rejecting the assertion that my car is blue, do I need anything more than the knowledge that my car is red? What other reasons could I possibly need?

You might criticize their strength of knowledge of the other thing, but that's a different kettle of fish.

_Rasl3rX_ posted...
seems like semantics, really. you might say he needs to learn that the motivations behind him rejecting Islam are the same as Muslims rejecting Christianity.


It's not really semantics, not in this case. You're right that the reasons a Muslim would reject Christianity are close or the same to reasons why a Christian would reject Islam, but neither are the same as why many, if not most atheists reject both, and others.

Say we have a room, and we think there might be a person in there. One group thinks it's a man, another thinks it's a woman, a third thinks it's a cat, and a fourth isn't going to believe anyone is in there until he has more information.

The first three think the others are wrong because they think they've seen in the room. This is completely different reasoning from the fourth who doesn't think you can see in the room. That's why it would be inappropriate for that fourth guy to say "When you understand why you reject all other assertions about the room, you will understand why I reject yours."

---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#47Faust_8Posted 7/16/2013 8:26:20 AM
Yes, I see that. I'm saying I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in that I think they have MORE reasons to reject it aside from "well it's not compatible with my religion."

Obviously if it really is false, there are independent reasons for that, yes? It's not false simply because it's not X religion, it's false for other reasons as well.

If you're a Christian you reject Islam not only because it's not compatible with Christianity, but for example you would also think it's wrong because Mohammed did not receive a true revelation. If something is false, it must have some false foundations. That is WHY it wouldn't be compatible with something that is true. The incompatibility isn't the penultimate reason that it's false, it's just the consequence.

It's those other reasons that should let believers know why they don't believe their particular religion either, as well as the rest. If you think that besides being incompatible, that their prophets were wrong, or lying, or their claims are impossible, or it's a money scam, or it's just a honest mistake bred through rumors and wishful thinking...then some or all of those reasons we level at your religion too. *Note, I'm using you and your generally, not kozlo or anyone else personally*

I hope you understand where I'm coming from now. I think it's just intellectually lazy to have no reason besides "it's not compatible with what I believe" because that's not the true reason it's false if it really is false.
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#48kozlo100Posted 7/16/2013 8:40:31 AM
No, I'm saying 'It's incompatible with what I believe' is the very best reason not to believe something. There might be others, but that's really the only one you need. If you have it, you don't need anything else.

Like I said with the car, all I need to reject the assertion that it's blue is my knowledge that it's red. I could go into spectrum analysis and dealer invoices and whatnot, but why would I need to? It's the very core of proof by contradiction.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#49C_MatPosted 7/16/2013 9:30:18 AM
_Rasl3rX_ posted...
seems like semantics, really. you might say he needs to learn that the motivations behind him rejecting Islam are the same as Muslims rejecting Christianity.


Are you DC, what happened to your other account? Whoever you are, you obviously don't know anything about Islam if you would say this.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#50C_MatPosted 7/16/2013 9:40:45 AM
myzz7 posted...
This topic was made with the intention of people giving their evaluations on the matter; hence the 'you' in the topic title. I see, however, that your intention is to muddle the line between facts and expanding estimates, regardless if they're logically made in consonance with the fact. In challenge to your first point, I have to ask, is Christianity focused on this life as an end in itself or eternity beyond death? If the answer is the latter, than I wasn't simply expositing on a personal inclination of mine, cut off from the actual fact that Christianity does have the emphasis on eternity. In logic, its either or, Christianity cannot juggle both simultaneously in equal importance to one another.

In establishing that which is--the fundamental approach to Christianity--I further commentate the implications of such a philosophy and what it neglects in its misguided prioritization. This is a very wide subject, and Christian doctrine does cater to human activities in a limited scope, yet in my very first sentence I specifically spoke of its fundamental focus, not its incidentals. I stand by my evaluations, and proven them by deductive reasoning.

In my last line about Christianity's burden of proof, and psyche, observe how I first established the fact Christianity has never put forth a demonstrable proof for its beliefs. If something cannot be proven, and isn't innocuous enough to stay a floating abstraction but dictates what a person should value in his most basic philosophy, then it is not an inaccurate comment to say that it will drag upon a person's psyche. Depending on how much a person tries to follow it, and his mental capacity to endure it, Christianity could do much more than 'drag' upon a person's temperament because a rational reason isn't possible to justify it.


Well, of course Christianity says there is life beyond death. But it never says that this life on earth is unimportant- just the opposite. It says that the decisions you make in this life will have repercussions throughout eternity. I see no reason why you think Christianity can't hold both of those beliefs simultaneously.

As for whether Christianity has provided evidence, I think it has, you've just rejected the evidence. But we all have tons of beliefs that we can't prove, even atheists. That doesn't mean those beliefs are psychologically harmful whatosever. As for Christianity, I rarely see any of its followers having nervous breakdowns over the issue you're raising.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk