Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 123
Thanks Tree33Thanks

Thread: Why?

  1. #11
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why is the first reaction to anyone who criticises a religion - particularly Christianity - is "You hate Christianity," or some variation thereof?
    Because, not only do you misrepresent the faith of christians, you imply irrationality in your criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I mean, Christians consistently criticise homosexuality, yet they get offended if it is even hinted that they are homophobic, or hate homosexuals.
    The former is a criticism of an act while the latter is a criticism of a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why would criticism of religion be any different?
    It wouldn't be different if only your represented that religion correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Fair warning, any response that is an attack of the poster ("You know you hate Christians", etc) will simply be ignored. Honest discussion only welcomed.
    Fair warning -- any criticism on another member's beliefs will automatically but your own beliefs to question.

  2. #12
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I notice a whole lot of "They", and not a single "I", or "we". Seems the Christians here don't feel the need to explain their positions, so we're just left with a lot of speculation.
    Christian positions have already been expressed. What was never expressed is how atheism is rational, as you fancy yourself to be.

  3. #13
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Christian positions have already been expressed. What was never expressed is how atheism is rational, as you fancy yourself to be.
    It has been explained, repeatedly, that the only rational position of a thing's existence is to assume non-existence until affirmative objective, verifiable evidence to support that thing's existence is presented. "The universe could not have come into existence on it's own, So it must have been God" is not a sufficient answer, because:

    a) It is insistence that the universe was brought into being by someone/something for which there is not, yet, even evidence to demonstrate exists. I could just as easily claim a Giant Invisible Leprechaun created the universe. First, I would need to present evidence that the Giant Invisible Leprechaun exists. Otherwise, I am only asserting an unproven presumption.
    b) it is irrational, and unproductive to simply fill every unknown with "God did it," A better solution to a question of "Why did x happen?" is simply, "I don't know, let's find out,"

    Without objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, ascribing to God the cause of anything is irrational.

  4. #14
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,445
    Thanks
    190

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    ... Without objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, ascribing to God the cause of anything is irrational.
    Interesting "dogma" of a militant atheism, that's all. Why exists something? ("Why is there something rather than nothing?", Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1719))

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 3rd February 2018 at 10:01 AM.

  5. #15
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    64,297
    Thanks
    4157

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why is the first reaction to anyone who criticises a religion - particularly Christianity - is "You hate Christianity," or some variation thereof? I mean, Christians consistently criticise homosexuality, yet they get offended if it is even hinted that they are homophobic, or hate homosexuals. Why would criticism of religion be any different?

    Fair warning, any response that is an attack of the poster ("You know you hate Christians", etc) will simply be ignored. Honest discussion only welcomed.
    You ignore everything except your own perverted and bias hypocritical view

  6. #16
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    64,297
    Thanks
    4157

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro View Post
    I'd say that's an accurate description of Christians, yes.
    Tye fact is the liberals and democrats here only show their ignorance of Christianity

  7. #17
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,643
    Thanks
    27505

    From
    Wisconsin
    When someone starts a thread about gays every week, they get a rep for an obsession with gays.

    When someone starts a thread about believers every week, they get a rep for having an obsession with believers.




    Thanks from NeoVsMatrix and Engine-Ear

  8. #18
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,445
    Thanks
    190

    From
    Germany

  9. #19
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    You ignore everything except your own perverted and bias hypocritical view
    Really? And what makes "demonstrate objective evidence" perverted, or biased?
    Thanks from Ronin Tetsuro

  10. #20
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Interesting "dogma" of a militant atheism, that's all. Why exists something? ("Why is there something rather than nothing?", Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1719))

    You are attempting to make a philosophical argument to justify an objective claim. If you want to insist that God exists as a philosophical construct, okay. I can allow for that. Except you guys want to insist that God exists as an objective entity. As soon as you move into that arena, we are no longer in the realm of philosophical discussions, and have moved into the realm of scientific research. Either there is objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of an objectively existent God, or there isn't. If there isn't, then there is no basis for asserting that God objectively exists.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed