Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter banipal753
- Start date
yeah so Birdy - suppose that some pple think that science and religion are seperate in the way that they think science will never prove or disprove god. I hope theyre wrong - but maybe theyre right!
Ive had enough winging.
I will always be an atheist, and u will prolly always believe in god.
And its funny cos we can argue until we die, but neither of us will lose and back down lol.
btw u will do Lavoisier next year lol.
Ive had enough winging.
I will always be an atheist, and u will prolly always believe in god.
And its funny cos we can argue until we die, but neither of us will lose and back down lol.
btw u will do Lavoisier next year lol.
STRING THEORY MAN
HURR RHURRR HRURR
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? | Science | The Observer
birdy17
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 41
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2010
well sam, maybe they are, we'll have to wait and see.
probably, probably.
and yeah that's true haha.
but the world keeps spinning.
o right... yay. haha
take care.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
I think the simple answer to the OP lies in my signature.
Also note, "buddhism" is a largely varied philosophy and can in many contexts be atheistic. In sum, buddhists stay in their monastries and meditate. They keep within the bounds of liberty that society has provided and return the favour. Sure many would believe in irrational spirits etc but it does not affect the average Australian in the slightest and has no point in a debate.
Buddhists would never engage in a lowly, ego-feeding activity such as prosthelyzing. They are far more transcendent on Christianity in that respect.
Also note, "buddhism" is a largely varied philosophy and can in many contexts be atheistic. In sum, buddhists stay in their monastries and meditate. They keep within the bounds of liberty that society has provided and return the favour. Sure many would believe in irrational spirits etc but it does not affect the average Australian in the slightest and has no point in a debate.
Buddhists would never engage in a lowly, ego-feeding activity such as prosthelyzing. They are far more transcendent on Christianity in that respect.
I'd like very much for all of you in this discussion who actually care about Christianity V Athiesm to read this article by David Wong.
You may come across some humour in those pages - it is, in fact, a humour website. But don't let that dissuade you from actually reading the whole article. There are several pages and after you've finished reading it all, hopefully you'll realise how stupid arguing for or against your belief - whether religious (not limited strictly to Christianity as written in the artice) or atheist - really is. It doesn't really matter what side you're on and really, it shouldn't.
David Wong is a very solid writer and he knows how to get his point across concisely and in a way that isn't boring. Enjoy.
You may come across some humour in those pages - it is, in fact, a humour website. But don't let that dissuade you from actually reading the whole article. There are several pages and after you've finished reading it all, hopefully you'll realise how stupid arguing for or against your belief - whether religious (not limited strictly to Christianity as written in the artice) or atheist - really is. It doesn't really matter what side you're on and really, it shouldn't.
David Wong is a very solid writer and he knows how to get his point across concisely and in a way that isn't boring. Enjoy.
Last edited:
K
khorne
Guest
Look. By saying that your debate is pointless, you are dissuading discussion and the transferral of ideas between people, the sole purpose of this board.
It's like saying...Well, both governments have good and bad policies, can't we just elect both?
It's like saying...Well, both governments have good and bad policies, can't we just elect both?
Last edited by a moderator:
Apologies. Instead of editing my last post, I'll re-phrase it here;
It's pointless to argue that either side is right or wrong, or trying to convince someone on the other side to come to your side when they're clearly dug in and unwilling to move. My last post was indeed aimed at people who weren't trying to learn from a discussion or be civil in discussing, people who resort to petty and repeated arguements in an attempt to "debunk" the other side.
For example.
Instead of trying to disprove, the discussion should be centred around considerations of points of view without attempting to reach an ultimate "winning side."
My last post is aimed at the same thing the OP is aimed at - those Atheists attacking Christianity, and on the flip side of things, those Christians attacking Atheism.
It's pointless to argue that either side is right or wrong, or trying to convince someone on the other side to come to your side when they're clearly dug in and unwilling to move. My last post was indeed aimed at people who weren't trying to learn from a discussion or be civil in discussing, people who resort to petty and repeated arguements in an attempt to "debunk" the other side.
For example.
Not only has this person made a provocative statement, he has also neglected to supply any sort of evidence, links or other references to support his claim. What's the point in such an arguement?planck said:
Instead of trying to disprove, the discussion should be centred around considerations of points of view without attempting to reach an ultimate "winning side."
My last post is aimed at the same thing the OP is aimed at - those Atheists attacking Christianity, and on the flip side of things, those Christians attacking Atheism.
cankerblossome
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 12
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2009
In answer to the original question of this thread:
In terms religion vs no religion debates in Australia on a practical level (like being specific about the pros and cons of the attitudes and practices of various organsised religions), rather than philosophical 'is there a God?' discussions... they are arguing for secularity in THEIR society, and according to Wikipedia Australian atheists are more likely to attack or criticise Christianity because nearly two thirds (64%) of the population claim at least nominal adherence to a Christian-based religion, but nearly one third (30%), do not identify with any religion.
Furthermore, Christianity and associated values and practices have been the dominant cultural and social force in Aus since colonisation... eg despite KRudd supposedly being centre-LEFT, he still comes out with stuff about his Christian values guiding his leadership and stuff, or case in point the whole controversy about saying the Lord's Prayer in parliament...
The other religions the original poster invites us godless heathens to criticise are in the clear MINORITY, therefore if we are discussing what religion is or not doing for Australia (which seems to be the most interesting, relevant and useful way of approaching discussion on this topic rather than yelling at each other to abandon our most deeply held spiritual beliefs because, "I'm right you're wrong", or "I have a personal hotline to God and she says STFU", or "OMG religious people ever heard of empirical evidence???")... What's the point?
In Australia, even though cultural and faith diversity is ostensibly encouraged, discussing secularism vs religion on a public scale is more relevant to Christianity. Not to say minority religions are any intrinsically better or worse than Christianity, or don't deserve a say in debate, it's just the reality of Aus is that Christianity is the face of religion, pretty much.
In terms religion vs no religion debates in Australia on a practical level (like being specific about the pros and cons of the attitudes and practices of various organsised religions), rather than philosophical 'is there a God?' discussions... they are arguing for secularity in THEIR society, and according to Wikipedia Australian atheists are more likely to attack or criticise Christianity because nearly two thirds (64%) of the population claim at least nominal adherence to a Christian-based religion, but nearly one third (30%), do not identify with any religion.
Furthermore, Christianity and associated values and practices have been the dominant cultural and social force in Aus since colonisation... eg despite KRudd supposedly being centre-LEFT, he still comes out with stuff about his Christian values guiding his leadership and stuff, or case in point the whole controversy about saying the Lord's Prayer in parliament...
The other religions the original poster invites us godless heathens to criticise are in the clear MINORITY, therefore if we are discussing what religion is or not doing for Australia (which seems to be the most interesting, relevant and useful way of approaching discussion on this topic rather than yelling at each other to abandon our most deeply held spiritual beliefs because, "I'm right you're wrong", or "I have a personal hotline to God and she says STFU", or "OMG religious people ever heard of empirical evidence???")... What's the point?
In Australia, even though cultural and faith diversity is ostensibly encouraged, discussing secularism vs religion on a public scale is more relevant to Christianity. Not to say minority religions are any intrinsically better or worse than Christianity, or don't deserve a say in debate, it's just the reality of Aus is that Christianity is the face of religion, pretty much.
birdy17
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 41
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2010
gotta say that was a brilliant article. and i can't thank-you enough for throwing that into the 'discussion'.
K
khorne
Guest
Classic: If you know you're going to lose, go for the draw.
K
khorne
Guest
No, he was sucking up to you and the article, since he knows he cant prove/stand his ground on this point.
Planck
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 741
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
My apologies for appearing to be someone engaged in a drive-by, I've just re-posted these arguments so many times outlining how the central tenets of the christian faith are effectively falsifiable (In particular the resurrection of Jesus).
If you can prove from a historical or even philosophical standpoint that miracles do not occur then it goes without saying the statistical probability of an individual miracle occurring in the time of the credulous without any real corroborating evidence apart from the bible (Which may be a tad biased) severely undermines the central tenet.
I'm honestly shrift of this argument so I'm not going to repost the books and books worth of material I used to post in the DGE thread, but I feel your comment is right.
It was irresponsible of me to post something like that and leave, regardless of my previous inputs.
It's okay, I was only using your post as an example and by no means should my comment reflect you as a poster or how you traditionally argue your point. The important thing is that those kinds of posts are rife within this thread, sometimes with inane arguing but with equally as little proof. I fully understand why you'd only post a line like that, though.
I've been around long enough to know that on any board that isn't heavily moderated in terms of the kind of input allowed (i'm not talking censorship, I'm saying that posts are moderated in that if what the poster is saying has already been said, the post is deleted), most discussions tend to fall into a circular pattern that just isn't worth the effort anymore. Redundancy kills any sort of progress.
I've been around long enough to know that on any board that isn't heavily moderated in terms of the kind of input allowed (i'm not talking censorship, I'm saying that posts are moderated in that if what the poster is saying has already been said, the post is deleted), most discussions tend to fall into a circular pattern that just isn't worth the effort anymore. Redundancy kills any sort of progress.
Pretty much agreed with. But...where did you get those stats from, because unless I'm very much mistaken, the last recorded stats (2006 Census) are close to that, but different.
- Christianity - 63.9%
- No Religion - 25.7%
- Not Stated - 11.2%
- Buddhism - 2.7%
- Islam - 1.4%
- Hinduism - 0.7%
- Inadequately Described - 0.7%
- 'Other' Religions - 0.5%
- Judaism - 0.4%
Sexual Discrimination at its very best
I know this is a little off-topic, but I really couldn't care less whether or not the poster is male or female. I see now that she is female, but really, who the hell cares? The fact that I didn't even think about it means there's no discrimination.
Apologies to the poster if she is offended that I refered to her in the masculine.
Apologies to the poster if she is offended that I refered to her in the masculine.
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
lol in a philosophical sense existence itself is a miracle
Only because of our lack of understanding.
For example, ancient man scratches his nose. It begins to rain. Ancient man looks up to the clouds and realises that the act of scratching his nose makes it rain. The act of scratching his nose is miraculous to him because it apparently makes it rain.
Or a man is in a coma, around ~1000AD. Having been proclaimed dead, they move off to bury him, where suddenly in his coffin he bursts out while the priest says a part of the mass. The people attribute his waking up to a miracle, to the power of prayer, despite the fact that it probably had nothing to do with the mass.
For example, ancient man scratches his nose. It begins to rain. Ancient man looks up to the clouds and realises that the act of scratching his nose makes it rain. The act of scratching his nose is miraculous to him because it apparently makes it rain.
Or a man is in a coma, around ~1000AD. Having been proclaimed dead, they move off to bury him, where suddenly in his coffin he bursts out while the priest says a part of the mass. The people attribute his waking up to a miracle, to the power of prayer, despite the fact that it probably had nothing to do with the mass.