It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Do Atheists Attack mainly Christians and Muslims but not Jews?

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

A theory cannot be scientifically and demonstrable wrong without first becoming a fact.



?



edit on 14-8-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
All theology is wrong according to secular science simply because that is what it is. If it were factual then it would move into the realm of fact. Yes, this is an exclusive forum dedicated to theology and theology is filled with false theological opinions because that is what it is. Who can be the judge to say what and how much of any religion is intellectually honest or dishonest when it is nothing but theology. All religions are by faith and not proven by secular science nor are they demonstrable. It is simple apples and oranges and that is why this forum was separated from the science forum.


The thing is, it's not just opinions. Many folks try to assert these opinions as fact. Theology doesn't apply to science because it can't be proven. That doesn't mean science is against it or that the faith is wrong. In science you need evidence. Lack of evidence does not prove it wrong, however. You seem to think that is the position of science, but it's not.

There is nothing wrong with people offering their opinions on something based on theology. That seems to almost never be the case, however. I'm not talking about the theology itself when I am talking about intellectual honesty. I'm talking about the conclusions people make from it. There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher power or some theology, the problem is when belief becomes fact and folks use faulty reasoning to justify it. This thread here is about atheists "attacking" Christians rather than Jews or Muslims, NOT theology.


You can nor more prove theology than any other person on the face of this earth. If you could produce that proof then you could also show intellectual honesty and dishonesty. I hardly think you qualify as a judge of religion. A theory cannot be scientifically and demonstrable wrong without first becoming a fact. You may want to visit the science forum and present your theoretical models and see exactly what I mean. Flat out wrong is your opinion and nothing more as far as religion is concerned. Simply because the government and universities silence certain religions and favor others does not mean that what you have been taught is factual. What it does mean is that you think it is factual without fault and that is also intellectually dishonest.


Again, it's not about the theology. It's about when people make demonstrably false claims based on ignorance. For example, the attacks on radiometric dating, the attacks on evolution, the attacks on biology. To answer your point and really the point of this thread, the reason people attack Christians more than others is because they are the ones screaming that their religion is fact and make ridiculous claims about it being scientifically valid, or referring to themselves as creation scientists, claiming that dinosaurs and humans lived together, that there was a worldwide flood, that creationism should be taught in schools, or that the world is 6-10 thousand years old.

These types of claims are flat out wrong, because science has shown us otherwise. This is what I am referring to by intellectual dishonesty, not the theology itself. It would be different if folks offered their OPINION on the faith and theology, but that is almost never the case. I was just answering the thread topic. Theology can be interesting, but much of it can be interpreted as a story to teach a lesson rather than a literal factual account of how something happened. It's all about interpretation, and yes the bible literalists are the ones guilty of the intellectual dishonesty. Most theists accept that the bible isn't 100% literal and don't go around attacking science based on their opinion of an interpretation of an ancient text.

Again, this is the theology section, which is why I rarely post here. This thread, however, asked a question about atheists, so I figured I'd attempt to answer it. I do not believe this thread is specifically addressing the theology section only. It seems to be a general sentiment that applies everywhere. Maybe the Op can come in and clarify that, but this doesn't seem like a thread where you can throw around opinions on theology. It's about why the focus of debunking is on Christianity. Anyways, I hope that explains it a little bit better. I see your point on theology, and I don't usually post here but this thread grabbed my attention.
edit on 14-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
If you have a group that is reluctant to express their beliefs or defend them, well no fuel on fire and it just goes out.
Same with the creation topic, Christians on the other hand will vigorously defend their beliefs, perhaps because of this scripture.


They probably see how useless it is trying to justify FAITH. It's faith, they believe it, that's all they need. They don't need to come on a message forum and argue their religion because they understand that it is faith based. There may not be a large majority of Jewish folks left, but their religion has been around at least 3 times longer than Christianity. Defending your faith to the point where you lie about it is counter intuitive to the message of Jesus. Christians (not all of them, just the bible literalist camp) come on here and promote lies and falsehoods about science, and engage in a dishonest smear campaign of evolution where they blindly attack it and then ignore every single counter point presented against their argument. Then they pretend that they are the victim when folks call them out on the lies despite them starting the whole argument in the first place.

This is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in, and you, of all people, know this. You've been guilty of doing exactly that numerous times. I firmly believe that folks should promote their faith by doing good deeds rather than promoting an absolute literal interpretation of a collaboration of stories from thousands of years ago and attacking everybody else that doesn't subscribe including science and academia. If you want folks to join your cause, you need to be humble and do as Jesus did instead of attacking evolution and science like a rapid dog. Remember, the meek shall inherit the earth.

No, the fire doesn't go out because they aren't vigorously defending a 100% literal interpretation of the bible. If anything the reason Christianity as a whole is declining is because of the dishonesty and the need to attack others over a worldview. These people look like nutjobs, to anybody that might be interested in learning the faith, so they likely get discouraged. With you in particular, you just don't do the research on both sides. You keep repeating dishonest claims (like your recent gender evolution claim) and when people show you that your understanding is faulty, instead of upgrading your knowledge and learning the opposing side, you flat out deny it and pretend the information was never presented and then go and parrot the same claim in another thread hoping people won't notice.


edit on 14-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: brandiwine14

I don't think they hate Christianity, they just don't believe it. Christianity itself teaches some very good things. What people hate is when people promote the faith as fact and try to lobby lawmakers to make laws to cater to them. As a former Christian, I still have many Christian friends, and my family is all Christian. I have no problem with this because they aren't fundamentalists, and they don't attack atheists or scientists. They try to live as Jesus did. This is something that most fringe groups refuse to do. It's about empathy. I do not think Jesus would be attacking evolution if he were alive today. He would likely be hanging out with the scientists to understand where they are coming from and to teach the positives of the faith. Many folks have issues with doing this and decide to attack non believers and scientists instead. Shame on them.
edit on 14-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
As far as why they think attacking christian beliefs is fine, its because they come from mostly christian backgrounds so they think that makes it ok. Muslims are an easy target to everyone since "terrorism" theater began.

Its why you see the hypocritical "respect for other religions except x" mindset (sneer at christian beliefs but your enlightened if your follow budda, zen, ect).

You can also be Jewish and not a practicing Jew, so it could also be tantamount to ethnic bashing which is a big lefty-correcty no-no (unless your white and male, then its ok).

Im talking about mostly hipster-SJW millennials...not normal atheists. Most of the atheist friends I had back in the day didn't give a rats fart about religion and certainly didn't want to debate or argue about it....I suppose today they would be considered nihilists, this image captures the attitude best:





edit on 14-8-2015 by sirChill because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum



?

? ?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirChill
As far as why they think attacking christian beliefs is fine, its because they come from mostly christian backgrounds so they think that makes it ok. Muslims are an easy target to everyone since "terrorism" theater began.



Is there a Muslim Political Right lobby trying to govern America through the pulpit?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

A theory cannot be scientifically and demonstrable wrong without first becoming a fact.



?




originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

? ?


So you have no idea what you are talking about either? Fair enough lol.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


So you have no idea what you are talking about either? Fair enough lol.

Totally misunderstood. Was waiting for your reply. What is your reply? -- That was why I replied with ??--

"A theory cannot be scientifically and demonstrable wrong without first becoming a fact."



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




Do you truly understand what you are ranting about?


Yep.




Do you truly understand what forum you are on?


Yep.



Do you understand what a scientific theory is?


Yep.



If a creationist is on this forum with a theological concept of a conspiracy then this is the correct forum.


So..?




On the other hand if a person is on this forum with the understanding that this is of theoretical secular science then that person is misusing this forum.


And?



If you want to indulge in secular science and get proven results and argue your little mind over formulas then go to the science forum where they will bury you in one rant.

Uhm..Okay?




This forum is designed for theological discussion. That means religious discussion which is strictly theology and not secular science.


Nope! If this is true then why try to discredit science? and do you expect us to sit back and except BS? If the religious loons want an echo chamber then go to a biased site like answers in gen, or Ken Hams Face Book there you can all agree on your nonsense and pretend your delusions are valid. Here on ATS we are encouraged to deny ignorance. Get with the program!



Get with the program and don't be so obnoxious.

That's how I roll, if you don't like it, ignore me..




Rat's ass is not proper language.


Rat's ass: An expression of lack of concern... Better?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


So you have no idea what you are talking about either? Fair enough lol.

Totally misunderstood. Was waiting for your reply. What is your reply? -- That was why I replied with ??--

"A theory cannot be scientifically and demonstrable wrong without first becoming a fact."


In which way are you using the word "theory"? Theories don't become "facts", theories are evidence based explanations for phenomena in the natural world/universe. The better the explanation and more evidence in support, the stronger the theory. They must have the possibility of being falsified, which would be the opposite of a fact, and are always open to revision.

It is non evidence based belief systems and various delusions, such as religion, that claim all sorts of facts and then cling to them, no matter how ridiculous they are shown to be.

Plenty of theories become obsolete or discarded because they were found to be clearly and sometimes even demonstrably wrong, or because other theory offered better explanation, not because they became facts. Some never become popular to begin with.

According to your claim, they couldn't have been discarded or wrong, because they weren't facts???

Or are you using the other more colloquial/personal version of the word "theory". Not seeing how they can ever amount to "facts" anyway. Personally accepted facts perhaps, but that's a different thing.



edit on 16-8-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it


(post by Derpfest removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

A theory cannot be scientifically and demonstrable wrong without first becoming a fact.


Please tell me you don't actually believe that. He responded with a ? because the statement makes no sense at all. So by that logic, talking snakes were a fact at one point? You do realize that facts in reference to unrelated things can prove other things wrong right? Like the ability to survive in a whale for 3 days, the flood of the entire planet at once, etc... Those things don't become facts, before they are proven wrong. They are proven wrong based on geology and biology. A scientific theory cannot become a scientific theory without proven verified facts supporting the premise.
edit on 17-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join