Whats up with People Who Like to Insult Other Faiths but Upset When His Own is at the Receiving End?

[jankren]

I know this Egyptian Coptic guy who hates Islam so much. Everyday he makes fun of Islam, Muslims and Muhammad. He knows that although now Im an atheist, but I used to be a Muslim. So he openly throw jokes about Islam in my presence. Most of the times I just joined in the gag and laughed at Islam along with him since I think all religions are foolish anyway. But what upsets me is that when I poked fun at Christianity even a little bit, he would get angry and refuse to accept that the stupidities that he liked to say about Islam could also be said about Christianity. I mean for example he would say "Muhammad is ". Then I would respond, "I think both Muhammad and Jesus are ". To which he would get incensed and try to explain to me in broken English how Muhammad is while Jesus is not. Another example was that he told me that Islam was spread by the sword and I agreed with him but I also told him that in Indonesia and other regions Christianity was spread by the gun by the Europeans and he would say, "No, thats not true. Its impossible." I mean WTF right?

So whats up with hypocritical people like this guy who can only see the negatives of other faiths but refuse to see the same crap about their own faiths?

[Minigrinch]

People are just blind to the truth and can't accept they are wrong, some atheists are like it too (I'm agnostic), if you try to explain to them that since the creation of the universe is unknown then we cannot be 100% certain there is no creator they will go off tap.

Its a common thing in life whether its to do with religion or not, people just really hate being wrong.

[In3x]

People are just blind to the truth and can't accept they are wrong, some atheists are like it too (I'm agnostic), if you try to explain to them that since the creation of the universe is unknown then we cannot be 100% certain there is no creator they will go off tap.

Its a common thing in life whether its to do with religion or not, people just really hate being wrong.

Who created the creator?

[Monarchist]

Who created the creator?

No one created the creator. The very point of believing in a creator is because there simply must be one thing that is not contingent on other things coming before. "Creator" means the being makes from nothing. It's only a logical reduction.

[In3x]

No one created the creator. The very point of believing in a creator is because there simply must be one thing that is not contingent on other things coming before. "Creator" means the being makes from nothing. It's only a logical reduction.

What if I said that thing was the universe itself?

[Monarchist]

What if I said that thing was the universe itself?

Following that logic implies that a universe itself does not need a creator, it can simply be in existence.

You would both be incorrect in saying such a thing.

The Universe is itself composed of parts which are in atrophy. A profound state of entropy is also observable in this Universe, whereby things are diffused as time progresses. Now, how can you call a thing the very principle foundation of reality when its own components aren't all that unshakable? This Universe neither presents an essential, necessary, or foundational structure for reality, since it seems to be dying slowly.

For a thing to be the cause of everything else, it must be totally uncaused and necessary for all things to be based on; otherwise, it must have itself been caused, and so is not the principle "beginning". Since all the parts and complexities of this Universe display a set of causes, however, we must conclude that this present reality is merely a set of effects from a more distant cause. There may even have been a universe before this one, and so we have even more distant causes to consider; in the end, however, it must all be reduced to one uncaused cause. It's just a question of common sense. A ball does not fall off a table by itself, but is shaken or pushed. The universe wasn't just sitting there on a table, generating itself forever.

The fact is that this Universe gives no indication that it is an uncaused cause. Every single 'corner' of the Universe is either atrophying or in entropy. Things are moving apart, generally speaking, and matter is breaking down very slowly over time. Some cosmologists believe that things will eventually degenerate into a big black soup of darkness, where even the residual illumination from the last black hole is gone because there's nothing left to suck in or push out in cosmic jets. Of course, there's the very stupid "Big Crunch" notion, whereby causality will cause an inevitable movement back to another Big Bang. None of this makes sense, though, because the Universe is obviously not constructed on itself: being so tangibly in a state of flux.

Except even Old Testament agreed that it is not "nothing", but an universe of Chaos before the appear of creator; creator's role is about to bring order from the existing disorder, and it may even suggest creator itself was a product from disorder/Chaos.

Where do you get this idea, my friend? Genesis says that God created everything, and it was void after He created it, eventually shaping it as time began to progress. There's nothing indicating a primordial chaos which some foreign God started to shape.

[Their Law]

No one created the creator. The very point of believing in a creator is because there simply must be one thing that is not contingent on other things coming before. "Creator" means the being makes from nothing. It's only a logical reduction.

Following that logic implies that a universe itself does not need a creator, it can simply be in existence.

[hellheaven1987]

No one created the creator. The very point of believing in a creator is because there simply must be one thing that is not contingent on other things coming before. "Creator" means the being makes from nothing. It's only a logical reduction.

Except even Old Testament agreed that it is not "nothing", but an universe of Chaos before the appear of creator; creator's role is about to bring order from the existing disorder, and it may even suggest creator itself was a product from disorder/Chaos.

[Monarchist]

It's called sin; it's called pride; it's called arrogance; it's called self-confidence; it's called presumption. We all have words, phrases, and terms for this general attitude. It is certainly more hypocritical for a Christian to hate all religions and then become indignant when he is attacked, for Jesus Himself said: if we are forced one mile by an aggressor, cheerfully go another mile with him. There's no need for this childish rubbish.

Just a warning: if you think you've found some sort of psychological argument against religion in general, I must caution you against taking it to a conclusion. Simply because religionists do not follow the laws of their own religion has no real meaning for the truth of the religion itself. Christianity is much bigger, better, and more majestic than we Christians can ever do it justice by.

[Col. Tartleton]

It's called sin; it's called pride; it's called arrogance; it's called self-confidence; it's called presumption. We all have words, phrases, and terms for this general attitude. It is certainly more hypocritical for a Christian to hate all religions and then become indignant when he is attacked, for Jesus Himself said: if we are forced one mile by an aggressor, cheerfully go another mile with him. There's no need for this childish rubbish.

Just a warning: if you think you've found some sort of psychological argument against religion in general, I must caution you against taking it to a conclusion. Simply because religionists do not follow the laws of their own religion has no real meaning for the truth of the religion itself. Christianity is much bigger, better, and more majestic than we Christians can ever do it justice by.

Then it's a lost cause isn't it?

You begin with the assumption that man has a net value of evil. You shift the blame from the creator to the creation. You then have God build a bridge (a church) for men to cross from net evil, to net good. However the implication is that most people will not make it across the bridge and will either remain on the bad side, or will perish in the attempt. The vast majority will receive either annihilation or eternal damnation, and only a select few will be redeemed. The fact that God will save a few is taken as a sign of his love, completely ignoring the fact he made the people wrong in the first place and that there are negative results for them. Where is the creator's responsibility to the created? Surely the Church isn't enough?

It's almost impossible for me to take Christianity seriously. Not to mention the possibility that you have no control over whether or not you'll be saved. Christianity is begging on your knees not to go to hell at the whim of some shadowy entity. I'd rather walk blind folded by human pride into the furnace.

Deism? Not particularly convincing either, but at least it's more reasonable.

[Taiji]

So whats up with hypocritical people like this guy who can only see the negatives of other faiths but refuse to see the same crap about their own faiths?

A lot of religion users are simply that stupid. It kinda goes with the territory. Rather than just blaming the stupid user of religion, one might even conclude that the religion itself creates loads of opportunities for those kinds of ignorance and prejudice. Afterall, what's an idiot going to make of a premise like 'we're right about god and good (going to heaven), and they are wrong about god and bad (going to hell)'?... It's clearly a recipe for disaster, and one they're not even able to care about if they are pious enough.

[basics]

" So whats up with hypocritical people like this guy who can only see the negatives of other faiths but refuse to see the same crap about their own faiths? "

jankren,

A belief should be able to stand scrutiny whatever that is, but as you know not all see things that way. I don't think calling the subject crap helps your cause especially as most that adhere to something are quite sincere in their belief, might well be wrongly held yet sincere nonetheless.

[Helm]

"No, thats not true. Its impossible."

At which point you should have said.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true."

Then he would go like this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And it's because people like to have double standards so that answers that question.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

At which point you should have said.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true."

Then he would go like this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And it's because people like to have double standards so that answers that question.

But Luke's hand was cut off. I thought that atheists were above using violence for conversion.

[Helm]

But Luke's hand was cut off. I thought that atheists were above using violence for conversion.

Not if the USSR is anything to go by.

[boofhead]

Jankren, it's called being a hypocrite.

I watched this video the other day on a muslim vid sharing site, informing muslims about how they are to treat and deal with non-muslims. This imam guy basically said to treat everyone nicely unless they hurt our feelings. Respect their religion, unless they hurt our feelings.

In other words, if they say anything against Islam this guy reckons it's OK to be a complete prick. But I'm sure he has no problem calling people infidels or polytheists

[Blaze86420]

Jankren, it's called being a hypocrite.

I watched this video the other day on a muslim vid sharing site, informing muslims about how they are to treat and deal with non-muslims. This imam guy basically said to treat everyone nicely unless they hurt our feelings. Respect their religion, unless they hurt our feelings.

In other words, if they say anything against Islam this guy reckons it's OK to be a complete prick. But I'm sure he has no problem calling people infidels or polytheists

You have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

The Muhammad pictures were nothing like that.

[Makrell]

yeah those atheist always get so friggin mad whenever i try to say anything like that you can never be 100% certain and so forth
it annoys me

[Himster]

yeah those atheist always get so friggin mad whenever i try to say anything like that you can never be 100% certain and so forth
it annoys me

To be fair not all atheists get like that; it's only the loud one, so I guess that is most of them.

[Makrell]

To be fair not all atheists get like that; it's only the loud one, so I guess that is most of them.

Well most of the people that actually care about me being christian are like that. the atheist that are rather indifferent to all that dont do that mostly. These " militant atheists" However refuse to eblieve i can be christian without having read all christian books and knowing everything abut christianity.

rant off