Christians: We Arent Trying To Condemn Anyone

When non-believers attack you, we don't burn your property, beat your family, we don't rape or stone you. We criticize you.

We don't come uninvited on a Saturday morning to tell you you'll burn in hell if you don't join us. We don't make mockups of people and burn them in public to intimidate you.

We don't insist that laws be built on our belief.

Yeah, militant atheism is no better than militant religion, because it says Well you're stupid for believing that ***, and you should feel bad you hoodwink children into it. Of course.

That's the difference.

You are right, though. I'm not tolerant of religion. I'm an open critic, because religion is fundamentally flawed, it is corrupt, and it allows for people to justify killing each other in the name of what religion is most peaceful.

But one thing I won't do is act on it beyond words and fighting for equality. I won't punch, I won't kick, I won't shoot, I won't burn.

Why does the burden lie with the believer? The question "Does God exist?" has a possible yes and no answer, it is the responsibility of the person searching for the answer to provide and examine the evidence. Evidence in such a claim is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't believe God exists, why do you ask the question, if only to try to use a poorly instance of philosophical logic to feel smug?

Go to CARM.org and use their chatroom. Atheists are freely welcomes in there and no insults are allowed by either side. The chat is about logical debate for the existence of God, which means it must adhere to the rules of philosophical debate on both sides. There are actual Philosophy majors on both sides of the fence there that actively enjoy this debate, logic can and has been used to discuss the existence of God.

Sect ain't all bad. At least most of this group can jump on other topics and be fine, or simply goof off on here.

Reminded me of this:



(I hope I didn't just open up an abortion can of worms, I was only meaning to scatter the stem cell can of worms further...)

I have considered selling my eggs for a couple reasons. One, not going to lie, it's good money. But second and more importantly, it could help a woman who can't have a child to have a child. I chose not to because it was against the moral compasses of some of my close family members and because I think that people who can't have children should adopt one of the hundreds of kids without a home.

Which, incidentally, reminds me of this:



And this:




Ooh! And this!



And THIS!




And I just realized that an outrageous amount of all my opinions can be summed up in lol pics. D: I'm going to step away from the computer now and pretend to be an original person.

The initial claim: God exists.

Until it can be proven, it can be dismissed. The whole rest of your first paragraph is codswallop because of that.

I'd like to think I'm only bad when I'm too passionate.

I am entirely too passionate about the injustices of religion.

And open vs. proprietary software.

Leila, I'm positively convinced we're just "sisters from another mister" sometimes. =)

And...Yeah! Egg donation is crazy money!

Because if you claim that something exists you must back up that claim with evidence to prove your claim. The obligation is not on the non-believer to prove wrong something that has never been proved right. Even worse, to spread this claim with no evidence, people will turn to you and say why should I believe you?

The fact that there is no evidence IS proof it does not exist.

Honestly, Im trying to figure out what it is that the atheist movement does. I mean, I honestly expected about 20 links and a list of programs when I asked you about the programs instated by atheists to improve communities and peoples lives. Instead you told that you want to teach children about evolution and then commented on how theists block you from coming up with cures for diseases.

I've posted about complaining because that's what most of your responses involve. You don't focus on what you see as the good or what the movement has done to better communites or people's lives but instead on how you're opposed and the victim in everything. You also choose to insult and claim intellectual superiority over other people without, what seems, really taking anything into consideration other than that one is an atheist and the other a theist.

Religious fundamentalism. Not everyone that is a theist is a fundamentalist. You'd be surpised to see that some of them even advocate some of the same issues you do.

Sounds like typical atheistic rhetoric to me. You have yet to tell me why it is MY responsibility to prove to YOU that he exists. Your salvation/lack there of for whatever reason, is NOT my problem. If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't even entertain the notion of having someone try to prove him to me. Everyone who believes in God has their own reasons, and evidences, and they are neither stupid for believing in so or bad or wrong for doing it.

I don't want you to believe me. I want to stop being grouped with the zealot minority who you always see in the news because no one would care about "Peaceful Christian Minds His Own Business" headlines.

@evandis

I am currently talking beyond just America and Christianity, although I have seen more than one car get defaced for having a Darwin fish. Outside of America, say in the Middle East, all of those are common. In religious Africa, all of those are common. But if you want closer to home, vandalism and threats are often received by atheists-particularly vocal ones-on a regular basis. I think it was Dawkins that has a video up where he reads some of his favorite death threats against him. We also live in a world where doctors and scientists get bombs mailed to them by zealots, where they are killed by car bombs. We live in a world where radicalists blow themselves up to harm you. How is militant atheism worse than any of that, for mocking?

There are tons of accounts in this very thread mentioned of the Ahlquist case alone where Christians threatened her, said she would burn in hell for eternity, and so on. That's intimidation, for sure. Just today I read an article where people were threatened to be murdered for discussing Sharia Law.

And on topic of religion and laws:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/supreme-court-says-judges-cannot-get-involved-in-church-employee-discrimination-dispute/2012/01/11/gIQA7EGqqP_print.html
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics?ft
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/missouri-the-stupefy-me-s_b_1203175.html?ref=science
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/12/indiana-republicans-introduce-bill-to-allow-the-lords-prayer-to-be-required-by-schools/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/12/indiana-senate-bill-would-give-school-boards-the-power-to-force-teachers-to-teach-creationism-as-science/

You were saying?

On the atheist and progressive movements, it's hard to explain a movement that has no central nervous system yet. I'll try and figure out how to explain it.


Because you claimed he exists.

The burden of proof rests on you, because of that. It's not a difficult situation.

If a scientist came out and said "String theory is true!" he would have to show supporting evidence for it. He made a claim, ergo he has to prove it for being valid.

While I disagree partially with Saggi, the gist is the same: absence of proof is not proof of absence, however that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Those countries are predominantly Islamic, so it really seems to me that you should focus your hatred on the actual responsible religion.

And very good on finding a few news stories, that is such a fallacy for proof that what you claim is rampant actually is. How does one find a news story for an event that isn't actually happening to prove their point? You want me to take pictures of the countless cars with Darwin fish that aren't defaced? They will outnumber every single instance you can provide.

I was taught about evolution in school, in a Christian community, with not one shred of controversy. In fact every school in RI does and we don't have any issues. Those who want complete religious indoctrination in their teachings send their kids to the many Catholic schools we have.

So I am going to use your logic. Since the lack of evidence is evidence for him not existing, than the lack of daily, multiple stories in all cities and states about attacks on atheism by Christians is proof that you are using isolated incidents to generalize a large portion of the country.

For the record, there are many Christians who believe evolution is real. The Bible doesn't say how God creates things, what tools and methods he used, evolution can very well be the tool. Like a great artist and his sculpture, continuously remolding it to be exactly what he wants.

No you're not stupid for believing at all, but like I said, the obligation is on you (the Christian) to provide a reason that we should believe in God. You are the one making the claim. Somebody had to make the claim that God existed before it could be doubted. So what did they use as a starting point for this belief? They used the unknown. Well guys, we really have no idea so we will just assume?. No, not in this day and age. Scientists don't tell us how science works and just expect us to believe it, they back it up with evidence. Archaeologists don't tell us what happened in the past without evidence.

Also I'm amazed you have the nerve to accuse me of using a rhetoric when the favourite line of Christianity is "you can't prove he doens't exist". Well, actually, the proof is that there is none and until evidence is found to show otherwise, you cannot claim that he exists, only that you think he exists.

You do not know.

Imagine for a moment how you would react if I said to you I have an invisible friend who can walk through walls. He is invisible and only I can see him so there is no way you can ever disprove he exists. Now imagine what would happen if I went out and started trying to convince the masses that my friend existed and everybody should believe he is there.

People would ask for evidence of my invisible friends existence to give them something to believe in and they would think I was crazy unless I could provide some.

Once again, you don't get it. You atheists have this smug thought that I have to do anything you ask. I believe and that is good enough for me. I don't have to justify MY beliefs to YOU. If you want to honestly learn about God, than I will answer questions.

We want to learn why you believe in God. It's not enough to just say "Oh well nevermind I believe and that's that, if you don't that's your problem" then accuse us of being smug and avoid answering questions you know you can't answer.

Why? Why do you believe in God? Give us actual reasons.

Why, last time I gave my reasons, I was assaulted in a 20 atheists to 1 theists argument, and because all 20 of you were on the same page you declare, falsely, a victory. It would be the same situation with 20 theists versus 1 atheist, you would all expect me to individually address your back to back to back posts every 20 seconds and failure to address one now becomes your "victory."

And after that is done, you will call MY reasons ridiculous, which automatically invalidates your stance, because they are MY reasons and not yours.

Here's how I can explain it: atheists aren't bonding together to do stuff because they're atheists, except in matters of atheist civil rights and such. In those aspects, we have American Atheists, the Freedom From Religious Foundation, and the ACLU working to stop the spread of religiosity in public forums and protect the rights of atheists when it need happen. The primary battle right now is in the field of public school.

On the social aspect, American Atheists is currently running a 'coming out' campaign to encourage more people to come out to their families--if they deem it safe--and to show atheists that they are not alone. Through the last.. 3(?) years I've been following it, one of the most major fears I have seen young atheists profess is telling their families and friends. Hell, on reddit alone in the atheism section, there's at least 3-5 posts a day about parents flipping shits at their kids for not believing the Jesus Juice.

Atheists also tend to support progressive social movements on their own accords. Conservative atheists are incredibly rare, in my experience and the experience of those I know.

If you want one example of a big charity campaign, this year the atheist community organized a donation drive of $200,000 to Doctors Without Borders.

There is an effort by some atheists to organize atheists into a more focused group, but there is currently debate if that is the right decision or so.

Thing is, you probably won't ever see a movement in the name of atheism, besides the DWB drive.

As it stands I really don't see the reason why he needs to justify anything. These forums are known to be anything but understanding towards religion. You're coming in as a skeptic. Superficially you're asking for evidence, what you're really asking for is a debate.

No, you don't get it. We're discussing what the *** the burden of proof is. The burden of proof is that the person who makes a claim has to support it.

THAT'S ALL.

There is no proof, ergo it can be discarded.

If your evidence can be so easily discarded, maybe it's not really evidence at all, and boils down to a 'feel-good must be true man' sort of thing.

That depends Evandis, if your reasons are because you had sunny weather for a week and your crops were prosperous then yes I'll state my opinion, you can't preach that you are entitled to believe and we are not entitled to ours.

Why don't you actually just give me some reasons why you believe in God and we will go from there.

Atheists aren't having a coming out party, they are having an assault on religion party. You argue for wanting to not be attacked for your beliefs, by attacking others for your beliefs.

It will never be smooth sailing with your current plan of action. The moment you attack Christianity, you are just uniting us in a cause for defense. To claim to be socially proactive, but yet biased and judging, is a hypocrisy in itself.

You lash out at Christians, but be thankful that we aren't in the Middle East and dealing with Islamic people, because unlike these horrible Christian people and their horrible Christian laws, the Islamic faith runs the government and you actually would be stoned to death for the comments you make.

The hostility I've seen religion attacked at times casually and by professional atheists seems counter to what you've just stated. The celebration of people who have said "Religion is evil and must be condemned" is no small thing.

I don't believe religion belongs in public schools, but intolerance is apparent on both sides of the aisle. That being said, not all atheists are intolerant, as not all theists are intolerant.

Hahahha, I get to use your line! There's a minority of vocal anti-theist atheists like myself, and then there's the average atheist that has to keep his or her faith a secret. ;p

Wow, no wonder you say ***like that; it's really just easy to make excuses that way.

Proving God does or does not exist... I can see where both sides have a say in who needs to prove or disprove it.

For those that want to attempt to force their views on another and tell them that their way is the right way and you should follow it then I would say the burden falls on that person to prove or disprove it.

For those that don't care if you believe or don't believe then I would say the burden does not fall on this person. For the atheist that doesn't care if someone believes in God then why would that person put any energy into it. For the theist that is not trying to convince anyone to share the same beliefs why should that person not be allowed to have his personal faith?

Edit: Also, many theists outright say they can not prove that God exists (not that he doesn't). It's faith based. If you want someone to discontinue their belief in something though, I would imagine the burden falls on the person trying to prove their point.

I just want to start by saying I have no intention of getting into a big argument on this topic, because it is pointless to do so. Many religious people on this site do not post in these threads because of the general atmosphere. It always turns out to be 3 or 4 athiests ganging up on one theist.

Also, religion is a very personal thing, and should stay that way. Evandis, if you claim your religion is between you and God, why are you still posting?

My religion is very personal to me. My "evidence" is very personal events that happen in my own very personal life, and I do not need them discounted by someone just wanting to tell me I am wrong. Its why I stay out of these threads, because it never goes anywhere good.
If anyone has anything to ask me about, I will be more than happy to discuss things in private, but, like many others, I will not put my personal life out on display.

I see in many cases, people get in arguments in religious threads and it changes their attitude in other threads as well. I swear these debates are more harmful to this site than player warnings ever were.

Yet Christianity judges that we will be sent to hell if we do not believe in God. That despite being granted free will we MUST believe in God or be denied entry into 'heaven'. That sounds pretty biased towards religion to me.

I have to agree with this. Atheists harp on the past too much and focus on the raving lunatics (WBC). Atheists make it seem as though every person who claims Christianity will deny their children a worldly understanding.

I mean, I grew up among Baptist mega-churches, and the people within my community who attended church were doctors, professors of molecular biology at UT Dallas, research biologists, etc. They professed to be Christian. There are grey areas, and as many have stated, your intelligence is not determined by whether you believe in a supernatural being.

I don't even...

LE SIGH.

A claim needs to have evidence before the evidence can be examined and 'disproven', though nothing can be 'disproven' anyways and just dismissed. Why is that so hard to grasp?

If I claimed I owned a dragon, I have to provide evidence for that claim before it can be valid, because it is an extraordinary claim.