Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 307

Thread: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

  1. #141

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

    In short, yes. I disagree with you. I don't care if you think Muslims are thin skinned or not, we offend them just the same as we offend whichever God you happen to subscribe to. There is no difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  2. #142
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    Also, most atheists are socialists more or less openly so their just found a new cult to worship and ain't that critical as they would pose.
    No, they are not. Atheism precedes any current ideology, it can be actually traced back to ancient Greece. Was Diagoras a socialist? There are liberal Atheists, conservative Atheists and socialist Atheists. Bertrand Russel was an atheist, Ayn Rand was an atheist and please tell me that Ayn Rand was a socialist. Actually, atheists being usually opposed to the infringement of rights by the state, are more likely especially in the US to be liberals and not socialists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    I let everyone his little cult when it makes him feel good, but just don't force me to follow their rules so i don't have to shoot you.
    Please don't shoot in an internet forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    Ask those people if they want "Free government school" most of them will say yes. Ask those people if they want "free government healthcare" they say yes. Ask those people if we need "serios gun reform" most of them say yes.
    Based on research studies that you will present in your reply. I mean, you seem to have a deep understanding of the issue so data are forthcoming. I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    I just don't like the word because that associates me with people like Richard Dawkins who wants Eugenics and that Government and Technokrates desicde who can have kids till we end like china.
    Yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Dawkins (which I dislike for other reasons) wrote in the afterword of a book named "Dangerous Ideas":

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

    Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as “these are not one-dimensional abilities” apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

    I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?


    So for you, evoking the possibility to start a discussion on a topic, means "support"

    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    Government and Technokrates desicde who can have kids till we end like china.
    It's called pre-natal control. Technocrats, like doctor,s affect the decision of proceeding with childbirth everywhere already.

    And what on earth China has to do with that? The one child policy (which affects around 35% of Chinese population since there are numerous exceptions) has nothing to do with Eugenics. It's not "technocrats", it's politicians who decided that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    I realise that people who see a man rape a woman call them rapeists, but from a outside point of view. This isn't rape, its forced sexual intercouse. Its also not rape because two or more people are involved. Its a question of how much and hard is raped and then where the rapeists decides to rape.
    Did you just equated the attribution of meaning to a political ideology with attribution of meaning in rape?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raubritter View Post
    Blablabla. Are you kidding me? Are you ing kidding me? You describe socialism, what i just said, but with a sing song to lull people. This is EXACTLY what i mean when i say that socialism is their new religion. A Cult member would his cult never call cult, a muslim wouldn't call islam just a religion, its their only truth thing.
    I have no issue with equating blind faith to an ideology, religious or not, with a cult. Religion after all is another ideology. The difference is that a theory based on a non religious ideology can be demonstrated as false, while a theory based on a religious ideology will always fall back to magical and mystical explanations as last defense.

    That of course is true in the case of your ideology. However confused and inconsequential it may appear through your posts, it is also a cult. A religious cult I might add, since in all these posts you have failed to offer any evidence to support your claims.
    Last edited by Darth Red; January 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM. Reason: continuity

  3. #143

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

    In short, yes. I disagree with you. I don't care if you think Muslims are thin skinned or not, we offend them just the same as we offend whichever God you happen to subscribe to. There is no difference.
    Andyou now what happens to those who do this to Islam , right ?
    In Netherlands I remember one was killed

  4. #144

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliazar View Post
    Andyou now what happens to those who do this to Islam , right ?
    In Netherlands I remember one was killed
    And yet the Dutch remain among the most outspoken anti-Islamists in the world.

    I'm pretty sure you find Christians killing people for poking fun at Christianity as well, it's just that the media coverage and media angle is different when that happens.

  5. #145

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliazar View Post
    Andyou now what happens to those who do this to Islam , right ?
    In Netherlands I remember one was killed
    Here. Let me remind you of your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliazar View Post
    Because they don't dare to do this to other religions .
    They will have great problems
    And yet you know of one in the Netherlands who was killed? So yes. We do dare "attack" (criticize) other religions just like we "attack" (criticize) your religion. Your victim complex doesn't alter reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  6. #146
    The Dude's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I hate it when forums display your location. Now I have to be original.
    Posts
    8,032

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliazar View Post
    Andyou now what happens to those who do this to Islam , right ?
    In Netherlands I remember one was killed
    Of course we know. Islam's more civilised members notwithstanding, it's by and large a faith of desert barbarians. Who respond to criticism as desert barbarians.
    I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and many things I don’t know anything about. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing.
    - Richard Feynman's words. My atheism.

  7. #147

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    Of course we know. Islam's more civilised members notwithstanding, it's by and large a faith of desert barbarians. Who respond to criticism as desert barbarians.
    You are grossly misinformed! More than half live outside of the Middle East

    ---

  8. #148
    The Dude's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I hate it when forums display your location. Now I have to be original.
    Posts
    8,032

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    So they've become arboreal barbarians. Doesn't change the fact that the religion they follow was written by their desert ancestors and follows desert standards.
    I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and many things I don’t know anything about. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing.
    - Richard Feynman's words. My atheism.

  9. #149

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    So they've become arboreal barbarians. Doesn't change the fact that the religion they follow was written by their desert ancestors and follows desert standards.

    I suspect you know very little about Arabic culture. If I am wrong, I would be curious to know what aspects of the Qu'ron is the result of outside influences and what was aspects of Arabic prior to their adoption of Islam as a faith.

    ---

  10. #150

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I suspect you know very little about Arabic culture. If I am wrong, I would be curious to know what aspects of the Qu'ron is the result of outside influences and what was aspects of Arabic prior to their adoption of Islam as a faith.

    ---
    Most of the Sharia are actually customs and laws of the arabian tribes.

    Islam itself is actually Christianity converted to suit the mentality and customs of arabs, just as christianity is a conversion of judaism for wider audience. Core belief is the same in all of these.

  11. #151
    The Dude's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I hate it when forums display your location. Now I have to be original.
    Posts
    8,032

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    I do know very little about Arab culture, but I also don't really get your question. What outside influences? The Quran was thought up by an illiterate man during his stay in a cave, who somehow managed to dupe his friends into writing it down for him and selling it as gospel. Either that or they were all in on this hoax and that it would be funny. As for Islam as it grew over the decades and centuries that followed, I can't say. What I do know is that a religion can be no more than the sum of its followers, and in Islam's case its followers were desert barbarians.
    I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and many things I don’t know anything about. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing.
    - Richard Feynman's words. My atheism.

  12. #152

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Most of the Sharia are actually customs and laws of the arabian tribes.

    Islam itself is actually Christianity converted to suit the mentality and customs of arabs, just as christianity is a conversion of judaism for wider audience. Core belief is the same in all of these.
    This is not entirely accurate. Shari'a law came from the Whaddist [sic] movement that started in Egypt. They were expelled from Egypt, but found a home in Arabia where the message resonated with the tribes.

    BTW I actually taught scripture in a Christian school and later taught comparative religions as part of a World Cultures course. I am not an expert, but I am knowledgeable on the religions of the world.

    ---

  13. #153
    Tim_Ward's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Up High in the North, at the end of my rocky road
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?
    Because 95% of the religionists I get into internet fights with about religion are Christians. This fact may in turn be connected to the fact that 95% of the religionists in the English speaking world (i.e. people I can actually have an argument with on a level playing field) are Christians.
    Dominion of Dust. A city of sand. Built your world of nothing. So how long did it stand?
    A 100 years? Now wasn't it grand? Built your world of nothing. How long did it stand?
    What did you think would happen? When did you think it would all fall down?
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Did yourself right, so let's feel grand.
    Domain of dust in a land of sand. Now there's nowhere left to stand.

  14. #154

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I suspect you know very little about Arabic culture. If I am wrong, I would be curious to know what aspects of the Qu'ron is the result of outside influences and what was aspects of Arabic prior to their adoption of Islam as a faith.
    Well you take a look at the pork deal. "No eating the pigs" is definitely a part of the Arabic culture. It's thought that the law came about when water was becoming scarce (being in a desert and all.) I don't know if you know much about raising pigs, but they require an absurd amount of water.

    So yeah, a lot of the laws are dependent on the geography. Though I'm sure you're right, I wouldn't put stealing from other cultures past any religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  15. #155

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Answer to OP:

    Because Christians turn the other cheek so it's the easiest target.

    If you attack Islam in the same agressive fashion you target Christianism, you might get beaten up by hordes of angry muslims, or worse.

    If you attack Judaism in the same agressive fashion you target Christianism, you might be labelled as a dangerous anti-semite. (even if most of Old Testament material is common to both Christianism and Judaism, so by critizing one means you critize the other, but better to avoid being labelled as anti semite just in case, so just mention Christianism. Also Judaism is the parent of both Christianism and Islam)

    So they choose the easiest and friendlist and most forgiving target: Christianism
    Last edited by fkizz; January 15, 2013 at 07:46 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  16. #156

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    This is not entirely accurate. Shari'a law came from the Whaddist [sic] movement that started in Egypt. They were expelled from Egypt, but found a home in Arabia where the message resonated with the tribes.

    BTW I actually taught scripture in a Christian school and later taught comparative religions as part of a World Cultures course. I am not an expert, but I am knowledgeable on the religions of the world.

    ---
    Oh I see now…

    I agree with you about Islam by the way. That stereotype seems to be largely based on modern forms of fundamentalist Islam which are reactionary invented traditions. There was a time when Islam was quite progressive. Many Jews and Non-Chalcedonian Christians passively supported the Muslim conquests because of the greater degree of tolerance Islam offered them.

    Well I am not an expert on Judaism in the great scheme of things, though the anthropology of religion is one of my professional specializations and I’ve done a great deal of graduate work in the Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible & Ancient Near Eastern Studies departments at UW. My old prof I quoted is Martin S. Jaffee, who is certainly one of the most knowledgeable secular scholars on historical Judaism. He’s published something like ten peer-reviewed books and forty articles on the topic.

    I’m not trying to attempt to support any of my arguments with an appeal to authority, just pointing out why when I make a generalization about a historical trend within Judaism and support it with a bit of evidence and you counter by saying you “have ‘Jewish’ friends who would beg to differ”, well that makes me lose interest in the conversation. Two Jews, three opinions, so what?

    The false dichotomy you presented (as I understand it) was that religious people need to take the Bible literally or are stuck with having to explain why they take only certain parts metaphorically, however there are other options for a lot of religious Jews. Why would Jews who don’t believe in a supernatural God have to explain the immoral actions of a fictional God presented in a story? Furthermore, the belief that God is inherently good is not a universal belief of Jews. You can even see this perspective in the Bible as I quoted earlier “All this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God; whether it is love or hate one does not know.” Lurianc Kabbalists believe God is the source of both good and evil, evil being the result of the universe (which is God) being out of balance.

    Why does Torah present so many ideas about God? Because it was composed by different authors who preserved fifteen hundred years of oral tradition that expressed perspectives about the universe that changed over time. Our ancestors generally agreed that a mighty and impersonal Will governed the cosmos through intermediaries such as angels, messengers, and spirits. God acted on the universe and demanded unquestioned obedience so as not to disrupt natural forces. ~ Mordecai Kaplan, The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion
    If you read the traditional sources without a Christian lens, you’ll see this is often the case.

    When you meet Jews with traditional theistic conceptions of God similar to the Christian view, you have to realize that is largely the result of Christian influence, especial on Modern Orthodoxy, though it was never a universal view and doesn’t accurately reflect the ancient beliefs as Kaplan describes, nor does it reflect the views of a huge percentage of modern Jews. Even those raised in that sort of tradition can still reject the idea that God is completely good.

    Just like God, we humans can be intolerant of imperfection (our own and others), judgmental, quick to anger when things don’t go our way, and prone to act abusively and destructively. In short, being modeled after God reflects both what is positive and negative about us. ~Rabbi Jack H Bloom
    What God Can Learn from Us: A Conversation with Jack Bloom
    Last edited by sumskilz; January 15, 2013 at 09:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #157

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I’m not trying to attempt to support any of my arguments with an appeal to authority, ....

    ...The false dichotomy you presented (as I understand it) was that religious people need to take the Bible literally or are stuck with having to explain why they take only certain parts metaphorically, however there other options for a lot of religious Jews. Why would Jews who don’t believe in a supernatural God have to explain the immoral actions of a fictional God presented in a story?
    OK, I ignore your appeal

    Two things;
    Stating something is over- generalizing by citing an extreme exception doesn't make a statement false.
    If you remove the stories, the inaccurate history, the insane rules, the incessant magic and magical creatures, and the pleading of the prophets, what is there left to call yourself a Jew?

    I'll tell you; fragments of a philosophy, not a religion.

    If you all you have is "stories" and there is not even an underpinning of morality or value being taught, then what is the point of the story?



    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    If you read the traditional sources without a Christian lens, you’ll see this is often the case.

    When you meet Jews with traditional theistic conceptions of God similar to the Christian view, you have to realize that is largely the result of Christian influence, especial on Modern Orthodoxy, though it was never a universal view and doesn’t accurately reflect the ancient beliefs as Kaplan describes, nor does it reflect the views of a huge percentage of modern Jews. Even those raised in that sort of tradition can still reject the idea that God is completely good.

    What God Can Learn from Us: A Conversation with Jack Bloom
    Forgive me but this sounds a lot like other sects who claims that other sects are not following the true faith.

    --

  18. #158

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Stating something is over- generalizing by citing an extreme exception doesn't make a statement false.
    What I've cited is neither extreme nor uncommon within modern Judaism. In fact it is your generalization that doesn’t fit any of the highly influential post-Enlightenment Jewish thinkers – Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Mordecai Kaplan, Solomon Formstecher, Leo Baeck, Franz Rosenzweig, Richard Rubenstein, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Lawrence Kushner, Roland B. Gittelsohn, Harold M. Schulweis, Alvin Reines, Erich Fromm. Read any of their work and see. Give or take a few percentage points, 78% of observant Jews are involved the denominations associated with these perspectives.

    I don’t know, maybe your point holds if you think a sizable portion of Jews are extreme among religious people in general, but then I don’t know how you quantify extreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    If you remove the stories, the inaccurate history, the insane rules, the incessant magic and magical creatures, and the pleading of the prophets, what is there left to call yourself a Jew?
    You realize no religion is static, most just pretend they are. There’s no need to throw out the stories or the traditions, why would you throw out the literature of a culture or anything else that’s not deemed harmful?

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I'll tell you; fragments of a philosophy, not a religion.
    No, you also have ritual, identity, tradition, and community cohesiveness. From an anthropological perspective, philosophies don’t function as religions do, except for some political ideologies which come very close to being religions. By your definition Buddhism would be a philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    If you all you have is "stories" and there is not even an underpinning of morality or value being taught, then what is the point of the story?
    The stories are foundational, as in they were the foundational literature of the community, the living tradition has just evolved over time finding new ways to use or understand the stories. Modern Jews are just aware of this, and so don’t pretend that they aren’t doing so. It helps that everyone knows the same stories.

    Here’s an example of how they’re often used:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "Finding Love Amidst the Pain Lessons from the first humans in brokenness and wholeness"
    ~Rabbi Michael Strassfeld (An excerpt from Embracing Judaism as a Spiritual Practice)

    "Therefore the Lord has sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till ground whence he was taken. So he drove out the man" [Genesis 3:23-24].
    He looked around him. Everything seemed different. Everything. Then he heard a noise. Startled and afraid, he turned. "Oh, it's you."
    "Yes, it's me," Eve answered quietly.
    They stood quietly, looking at each other, then looking away when their eyes met. They felt naked again, though in a different way.
    "Why are you here?" asked Adam in a voice thick with hope, anger, and confusion.
    "Here--why here?--isn't it obvious?"
    "You weren't expelled by God from the garden, only me. Only me," Adam said emphatically. He looked past Eve toward where he thought the garden should be. "You don't have to leave. You could stay in the garden with all it contains."
    She looked at him and said slowly, "I want to be here."
    "Here!? I have no idea where 'here' is."
    "I want to be here with you. 'Here' is with you." Hesitantly, Eve said, "I'm sorry about what happened. I'm sorry that you were hurt. I'm sorry that so much lies between us."
    "Sorry?"
    "Yes, sorry."
    "But you gave me the apple."
    "And you turned on me and told God it was my fault."
    "Yeah, that's because--"
    "Adam, we don't need to go over again what happened, who did what to whom, and why. I'm sorry for what I did. I'm sorry for what you did to me, but most of all I'm sorry about what has happened to us."
    "I'm sorry too, but I don't know if I can trust you." Adam looked around and looked at her and said, "Everything seems different."
    "Everything doesn't have to be different. This place is different, but we don't have to be different. I care about you. I want to be with you."
    "You want to be with me? You are willing to leave the garden for this? For me?"
    She nodded.
    They looked at each other. He stretched out his hand to her. She took it. Then they both said, "I love you."
    They felt naked to each other and they knew the wonder of love.
    Hand in hand they walked off.
    God watching all this smiled pleasantly.
    Satan said to God, "I don't understand. What was all that about, and why do you seem so pleased with yourself?"
    "Don't you see, they have found each other again. They for­gave each other. They reestablished trust. They discovered love."
    "Love," said Satan, "how does love come out of such a mess?"
    God said: "Love only comes out of a mess. Only from broken­ness can real wholeness come. Trust can only follow distrust."
    "But why so complicated, why not tell them all this?"
    God said, "They had to find out for themselves, they had to eat of the fruit of the tree."
    "What were those fruits? They looked sort of like apples."
    "Not apples, the tree's fruit were argument, discord, betrayal, anger, hurt feelings, and alienation."
    Satan asked, "And from eating such fruit you create love?"
    "No, you don't create love, but you can find your way to love. If you can remember what was before, what is really impor­tant, and can see the other's nakedness in all its fragility and beauty. And you have to remember that all other humans are equal in their nakedness, and all humans are equal in containing a piece of Me, of holiness."
    "But why did you expel only Adam and not Eve?"
    God chuckled. "It was the only way they could rebuild their love. Otherwise Adam would never be really sure that Eve was sorry. But because she was willing to give up Eden for him, he knew her love. And she too wouldn't have been able to trust his forgiveness if both were expelled and she just simply asked him forgiveness. In fact both would probably still be waiting for the other make the first gesture. Nothing would have happened. Creating the inequality created a choice for Eve. It was the only way."
    Satan frowned. "I still think you just could have told them straight out, none of this forked-tongue stuff.
    "Satan, you don't have children, do you? Someday maybe you'll understand how My children learn."
    And God placed an angel with an ever-changing sword of the flames of love to prevent humans from going backward into the garden.
    This may look like Strassfeld’s just making up a story, but it’s a midrash, an interpretive tradition that goes back to antiquity. It’s the same as Rabbi Akiva finding halachot in the crowns.

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Forgive me but this sounds a lot like other sects who claims that other sects are not following the true faith.
    No, it’s just diversity of personal and/or community opinion. Judaism has been traditionally more concerned with actions than belief. I think only the Orthodox make strong claims to that effect, but the criticism would be more about “correct” practice than “true” faith.

    Or maybe you were talking about what I said about Christian influence. Well, I was speaking from a historical perspective. Obviously whatever any Jews believe has become a Jewish belief, but the idea about a God who is completely good came into Jewish community through Christian and maybe Muslim influence, and there is historical evidence for that. It’s not really reflected in the early Jewish literature, at least not broadly. It’s certainly not how God is depicted in most of the Hebrew Bible, which becomes clear when you compare it to non-Biblical literature of the period.

    Either way, for Jews who don’t believe in God as an existent being, it’s irrelevant. God is good for some Jews, because to them “he” is an ethical ideal (and, no they don’t think the God depicted in the Bible is an ethical ideal). Anyway, God as conceived of typically by Christians is not a dominant view among Jews.
    Last edited by sumskilz; January 17, 2013 at 01:07 PM. Reason: fixed typos
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  19. #159

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    So they choose the easiest and friendlist and most forgiving target: Christianism
    No. We criticize everyone as has already been demonstrated in this thread. There are just more Christians, so it happens to them a lot more often. Also, I would ask everyone stop using words like "attack" and "target" in this thread. It's absurd. We're not launching drone strikes on cathedrals. We're just pointing out flaws in certain claims (or learning things that invalidate those claims).
    Last edited by Lazarus; January 16, 2013 at 02:15 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  20. #160
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: 95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    No. We criticize everyone as has already been demonstrated in this thread. There are just more Christians, so it happens to them a lot more often. Also, I would ask everyone stop using words like "attack" and "target" in this thread. It's absurd. We're not launching drone strikes on cathedrals. We're just pointing out flaws in certain claims (or learning things that invalidate those claims).
    And yet at the same time, what is wrong with attacking crappy arguments and crappy concepts. What does attack mean? To start work on with purpose and vigour? An expression of strong criticism? Attacking it is a good thing.

    Is it really so hard to defend? Of course it is. Have the biggest go against Buddhism you can think of, really go to town onto Humanism and while you are at it take a knife to pacifism. Some philosophies aren't so defensive and easily sent to ground.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •