Atheists, please explain?

Atheists, wil you please explain to me how being atheist means you have to nihilistic?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265151-your-religious-freedoms-danger.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...l-hitler-its-time-find-new-belief-system.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...uslims-jews-not-more-moral-than-al-qaeda.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-religious-texts-disaproves-slavery.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/264938-why-so-many-american-christians-hypocrits.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...on-t-think-he-s-son-god-even-resurrected.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/264610-devil-satan-lucifer-whats-difference.html

Now, in sharp contrast, we have someone attempting to discuss Nietzsche, a well known atheist philosopher and the participation is ....

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/264838-purpose.html

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Now the really interesting part isn't just the sheer number of slavishly anti-Christian atheist threads, its that they are mostly started by just a few atheists - over, and over, and over .... and yet the intent is supposed to be learning? Debate?

So why do we get so many vehemently anti Christian threads? All saying the exact same silly things?

Tell, how does 'just the belief in nof God,' equate to violent, unrelenting, absolutely propogandistic, deliberately misrepresentative, anti Christianity?

 

I am an atheist and I am not nihilistic.

I don't believe in god, and I don't equate to violent, unrelenting, absolutely propogandistic, deliberately misrepresentative, anti-Christianity.

I simply don't believe in God.

But before you feel too superior- you do realize that we also get many vehemently anti-Atheist threads- which are violent, unrelenting, absolutely propograndistic, deliberately misrepresentative and anti-Atheist.

Note the following threads:
Atheism isn't protected by the 1st Amendment
If atheism is so enlightened...
Powerful Argument to bring Atheist to Spiritual Line
Atheists are such tolerant reasonable people, Let's put them in charge
Atheists are SUBJECTIVE thinkers, who need permission from scientists, before.......
Atheism is responsible for more crimes in history than all religions
Atheists do not have the mental power to doubt GOD
Atheists cannot disbelieve or reject GOD without defining HIM.

And lets not forget your thread- deleted for being flamebait- "What is up with atheism"

and this one "Is there anything to respect in modern atheism"- also deleted- for rule violations

As an atheist, I happen to really enjoy the Bible- so I leave you with this verse

Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

What is your definition of nihilism?

I'm sorry, are forum members stabbing you at night? I'm guessing not. Save the drama for your momma and quit pretending to be persecuted. This forum is for discussing religion. Quit equating criticism and discussion with being violently attacked. Go rip up a Quran on the streets of Iraq and learn what violent persecution actually means.

 

Did you read through the new sticky on the top of this forum recently?

You have every right to report threads that you believe are attacking your religion, however you cannot whine and cry if people are legitimately criticizing it. This is not your safe little haven to praise Jesus and God without criticism. I recommend you visit purely religious websites which caters to your particular brand of theism if that is what you really want.

 

Yep, lets not forget that atheists demanded that those get deleted, even though they are all in response to atheist antics. Not a single one has been deleted when it is aimed at Christians.

You may want to stop playing the victim card, and apply standards equally - because if you think comparing Christians to Hitler is AOK, but comparing Atheists to Hitler ... well, why do the mods tolerate such things?

Let's also not forget that despite more than two years of continual harassment and attempts by atheist to silence criticism of their ... cult .. I am still here. As are other Christians.

So, how about you simply explain the atheist behavior, rather tham blame Christians for it? While stating that you are not nihilistic ... too boot.

It would certainly be nice if an atheist said, "Yep, those are wrong, and we should delete them too." Instead? Even in direct response (check the dates om the threads if you want), to atheists behavior - they are ONLY wrong when aimed at atheists?

Nice.

 

Yep doesn't mean we cannot make a point out of theovert hypocrisy in atheists reporting anything that criticizes their precious faith, and have a nice discussion about it though does it?

 

WHo is saying they are stabbing me at night? I am talking about a group of atheists who overtly targets Christians on this forum, with personal attacks, demands for personal information, and hypocritical smear fests? The term violent has more than a physical meaning my friend.

I am simply asking an atheist, why?

Lets see if we can get a straught answer? Or whether the point will be proven that thin skinned atheists do not like being treated the way they treat others ... not one bit.

 

It doesn't mean that any more than you, as a Christian, have to get uptight and take personal umbrage every time someone posts something that offends your narrow sensibilities. Sensibilities that you, for some reason, apply to all Christians. Do all Christians have to have a martyr complex? I doubt it, yet you seem to have one.

 

Atheism obviously has no direct and/or sensible correlation to nihilism, violence, propaganda, etc... These are completely relative to the person and to imply that any of these are true to atheism as a whole is propaganda in itself. Its especially hypocritical that a christian would even hint at such suggestions seeing that it is actually religion, christianity and its branches in particular, that have demonstrated far more examples of your accusations. Having said that, there are more christians out there and they have been around longer so in all fairness they have had more time to show these examples, but that certainly doesn't entirely devalue the argument. If propaganda bothers you to such a significant extent that you see fit to create a threat about its misuse by the other side, you would be wise to not use it yourself.

 

I don't. However, when I have roaving bands of atheists chasing me around the forum, and I am not the first to have this happen mind you, I believe it is something to take umbrage about.

And I am not the one saying behavior is acceptable ... because if you disagree with it, it means you have a martyar complex am I? Are these not the classic excuses of abusive people who blame their victim? These are of course, perfectly legit comments about your arguementation, and obviously have no inflammatory qualities whatsoever? Correct?

Or, and you would not think that this would be hard, perhaps there is something to be said abvout deliberately comparing groups to Adolf Hiter and Al Qaeda? Perhaps the intent of such conversations, started with inflammatory intent, is not debate or civil discussion at all?

After all, here I am just questioning behavior, routinely aimed at us, and all the atheists of this community can do is take .. er, a martyar complex because occassionally the behavior is aimed at them?

Wouldn't it perhaps be far more productive for both sides to acknowledge that some things should probably be right out of civil conversation - like vaccuous comparisons to Al Qaeda and Hitler?

I mean, I am pretty sure I started a thread that deliberately compared atheism to Al Qaeda the communities atheists would immediately run to the moderation team and DEMAND that the trolling stop? Would you like to test that theory?

Or can we, perhaps, as a community, instead of wasting the mods time trying to justify continuous comparison of Christianity to rape, murder, genocide, etc. is pointless and stupid?

But then, what would atheists discuss if they could not rag on Christians? Seriously?

Both I and exactly ONE atheist attempted to have a reasonable discussion about Nietzsche today - and the entire community of atheists, so concerned about the demanded respect for their faith being afforded them ... skipped it.

So serously atheists, can you not tell the difference between inflammatory language and a genuine cirtique? Can we not come to a common understanding that some behavior is outside the pale? That is a religious term by the way ...

Or do we have to continuously justify which side is correct in comparing the other side to Hilter? Pretty easy form of consensus that should be possible from a community that prides itself on its unemotional objectivity?

Well? What do you think?

 

Someone pointing out that he does not share your particular beliefs does not comprise a personal attack, nor is it an example of anti-Christian sentiment. If you do not wish to have your beliefs questioned, do not express them publicly, and there will be no opportunity for anyone to question them.

 

I think you might be using the wrong word, insinuating that those threads are "nihilistic."

Regardless, as SFJEFF pointed out, the threads you cite aren't much different from the anti-atheist threads. Both groups are largely started by the same respective handful of people. Aside from "violent" (which isn't really appropriate to any thread), your adjectives for the anti-christian threads pretty much fit the anti-atheist ones. And although you point to one thoughtful thread without much activity, there have been plenty of others, both atheist and theist, that have had a lot of participation. I guess I'm trying to say that religious forums in general tend to have a lot of threads like those you cite, from all sides. That doesn't mean being atheist or theist necessitates one type of behavior or another.

 

And yet the same atheists complain in droves to the mod team when someone compares atheism to Hitler? But the reverse is just dandy when its aimed at Christians? The intent is purely a critical analysis?

Well, is a comparison of atheism to Al Qaeda unwarranted and silly or not? If so, why is the same thing aimed at Christians acceptable? I fundamentally do not understand.

Now, here is the thing, as a historian and a former atheist, trust me when I say that I can make a historical, fact based arguement about the behavior of political empowered atheists killing far more people than politically empowered Christians ever have. I could also make the claim, about how bad violence is, by deliberately comparing atheists to Hilter and Bin Laden. It would be fairly convincing to the uneducated, as - no doubt - atheists think the constant drivel about Christians being ... slavers and rapists ... no doubt is?

But I don't. Why? Because we ALL know that it would be a total BS arguement. Why bother with deliberate and inflammatory lies? Even if you parse it up with a few interspersed facts, and trust me, there is quite a bit on the historical record that condemns atheist every bit as much as we human Christians.

BUT, and here is the BUT, if such antics, hard hitting and and ... occassionally dealing with facts from which flighty leaps in logic and comparison are made, will help atheists take a good hard critical look at themselves - I will be happy to indulge such intellectual and spiritual pursuits.

What say you atheists, should every Christian of the forum start a thread that compares atheism to ... some random evil thing?

My personal choice, would be to compare atheists to the historical Dracula, because, fear of the sun ipon venturing from their basements would be ... similiar? (just a joke mind you).

However, if atheist really think that deliberate and inflammatory comparisons to silly emotional stodges is ... hard hitting, objective analysis, I will be only too happy to help atheist cirtique themselves as they cirtique others.

Well, I humbly submit the decision about whether to engage in the behavior to atheists for their consideration. I await your decision.

 

Do you have any evidence that atheists are actually complaining to mods when someone compares atheism to Hitler? You seem to make a lot of claims about atheists reporting threads and posts. How do you know they're actually doing that?

 

Really, I am all for evidence. Show me a productive atheist thread on this forum?

In fact, show me one where there is discussion about atheist philosophy that is not literred with - geez dumb ass, we don't have a doctrine!!!

 

Yes, but lik ethe evidence for God, I am not allowed to show it to you. Its been an ongoing discussion for years now.

Here is a hint that should allow you to explore, and keep me outside the atheistic tendancy to report anything 'personal' as an attack - like when graspingforpeace called for my banning, and when I sarcastically replied with a thread about banning another atheist using the same standard. Who got a temp ban burz?

 

And the same with Christianity, Judaism and Islam, right?

 

That is funny, I defend all three faiths. Repeatedly.

But none of those faith groups are in her repeatedly starting threads comparing atheists to Hilter. It happens, occasionally, but well, just look at the OP - all of those were pulled form the main page - all started within the last week.

That murder happens somewhere, does not excuse mass murder does it. Same thing with bad behavior. That someone does it to atheists, does not excuse the prolific amount of junk routinely displayed on this section of the forum.

 

Why should anyone ever have to defend religion? If a person's favorite deity is real he/it/she should be able to defend itself instead of having to rely on surrogates.

It's like praying. Why should anyone have to pray? All it does is to say that the person doing the praying isn't satisfied with his deity's plans for him. So he's whining to his favorite deity that he deserves a better deal. That seems to go against the whole idea of faith.

If your deity won't give you anything that you can't endure why would you want to change it?

 

First, he called for people to ignore trolls. There's no doubt he was talking about you, but he didn't ask for a ban. Second, both he and yourself got banned. It wasn't just you, if that's what you're trying to imply.

So, given your incorrect recollection of past events, perhaps you'll forgive me for not accepting your claims of "atheists report posts comparing atheism to Hitler" at face value.

 

Nonliberal nontheists seems like it went fine.
Souls and Brain Transplantation looks like it was pretty decent (granted I didn't read past page 2).
And Is Hell a Matter of Choice? started out well enough, but began to head downhill around the second response.

 

You found three ... in hours. I found seven, on the first page of this section alone to make my point. I am not saying that it CANNOT happen, what I am saying is that rules, as they exist, favor the blind smearing of each others faith, rather than the .. three examples you had to search to find.

Seriously burz, you are not unreasonable, sometimes anyway , but are you any more satisfied with constant drivel about Hitler than I am? Do you find the stupid ass, sorry no better word for it, comparison of atheism to Stalin any more insightful than I find the constant silliness about the slaves in my basement?

Am I supposed to talk about the slaves in the basement? Oops.

 

You found three ... in hours. I found seven, on the first page of this section alone to make my point. I am not saying that it CANNOT happen, what I am saying is that rules, as they exist, favor the blind smearing of each others faith, rather than the .. three examples you had to search to find.

Seriously burz, you are not unreasonable, sometimes anyway , but are you any more satisfied with constant drivel about Hitler than I am? Do you find the stupid ass, sorry no better word for it, comparison of atheism to Stalin any more insightful than I find the constant silliness about the slaves in my basement?

Am I supposed to talk about the slaves in the basement? Oops.

 

It only took about five minutes to find those. I'm in crunch mode for a game I'm working on and posting here is pathetically serving as my break from coding. Even so, you have a point. It shouldn't even take 5 minutes to find a decent atheism thread. However, I don't know that you can find any more decent theism threads in the same or less time. Religious forums are just dumping grounds for opinionated jerks. Hell, most forums in general are like that.

To your second point, no, I certainly am not happy/satisfied with any of that junk. That's why I pretty much just ignore those threads.

 

I'm sorry Neutral, but you are missing the point I am making. I appreciate that you are an honest man with sincere beliefs, and that you do not enjoy having those beliefs questioned by those who do not share them. This is understandable, and if someone launched a gratuitous personal attack upon you for your beliefs, I would defend your, or anyone else's, right to quietly entertain any beliefs you choose. It is no one else's business.

By my personal standards, I find it ill-mannered to gratuitously criticise someone else's spiritual beliefs. However, in the event people find it necessary to publicise their beliefs, or to proselytise in respect of those beliefs, they must expect critical (in the proper sense of the word) evaluation. Spiritual belief (or faith, as it is sometimes known,) is not something which may be imparted by means of the empirical method, for the good reason that no universally accepted material or philosophical evidence can be produced to support such belief systems. So it comes down to 'I believe', or otherwise.

I happen to believe that my dad was one of the kindest, most heroic, people I have ever encountered. I have my own, very personal, reasons for this belief. But, other than for the purpose of discussions such as this, I would choose not to publicise that belief. For several reasons, but not least of which being the hurt I might experience if someone were to try and convince me that he was not that sort of man. You see, my opinion of him is entirely subjective, and I am realistic enough to realise that few people (especially strangers) are likely to share that opinion. In addition to which, I am convinced that he was a good man, and I do not need the validation of a stranger for me to continue in that belief.

Can you see the parallel I am drawing?