Why Do Atheists Feel the Need to Discredit Christ? (Buddhist, agnostic, Islamic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the first three centuries, the Romans tried to brutally deconvert the Christians. Crucifixion. Stripping naked and immersed in cold water for hours. Given to lions. They continued to proclaim their message, and refuse to forsake Christ, even when faced with death.
You know what happened? These actual martyrs (not Muslim genocide "martyrs") began to sway people's hearts. They had killed off the Jewish Christian, and suddenly we were dealing with Roman citizen Christians and Roman guard Christians. In fact, at one point there were 30 roman guards all immersed in cold water for hours on end. One broke, and begged Rome for forgiveness, jumping out of the water. Another guard went in, having converted sometime before or during.
When people criticize Christianity or worse persecute it, they give Christians a platform to testify. This is what Jesus meant by love your enemy, because in a sick way, they are actually helping you out.
Or, as an atheist you use your conscience as your guide based on various moral standards, instead of only doing the right thing because you're afraid of the punishment. And that's what Christians do -- the right thing because they're scared. I don't see that as admirable or moral.
I think you're missing the point.
In the future, as we approach singularity, 99% of the population will be not just unemployed, but unemployable.
What should atheist leadership do about this? A true atheist would recognize that this is their only existence, so it makes absolutely no sense to allow these "strangers" to destroy their planet and effectively lower the standard of living for the atheists at the top of the hierarchy. More than likely, this will motivate them to "solve" this population problem. If it doesn't, then perhaps, they are not true atheists, but a real atheist that understands their position in life will rise to power and do what it takes. Just like in Nazi Germany, those that will not be selected for removal, will do nothing.
Something like this could not happen if leadership abided by the words of Christ. I don't understand why you think you are special. Why do you think that you won't be one of the 99% of unemployables?
Let's be honest. Of course atheist activists (there asre the 'apathetics who couldn't care less) have a plan, agenda and mission. To push religious influence out of society to where it is is a group of believers without the teeth or clout to cause social or political damage.
Of course we believe that religion causes damage. We know that believers will disagree and point to all the Good religion does. We are frankly cynical about that, but even if done put of pure humanism because it's good to help, rather than earn brownie points with God or attract recruits, it isn't enough to justify it having the power and influence it has.
I won't go into the various accusations the believers sling at us - they are dealt with in the FAQ and simply saying 'we do not have a doctrine, we do not disbelieve because we like to sin, something Bad happened and we are blaming God.." isn't going to bother the believers who seem to think they know how atheists think better than we do ourselves.
Simply, they are wrong, and the real reason not to believe is NOT (as they so often seem to think) Darwinism, but the Bible itself; the religious doctrines themselves. Why many Christians disbelieve a good chunk of the Bible and only stop from becoming atheist because of:
Believing the bits they can't disbelieve or
Believing in some sorta god, not being of any religion and a sorta Pantheist/God of Einstein belief,
Disbelieve in all that stuff, but just can't stomach calling themselves 'atheist'. There are one or two atheists who can't
Sure, in arguing why we don't believe (the burden of proof is actually on the believer to validate the god -claim, not on atheists to disprove it - though in fact we can do that to about 80% probability, or more) the debate is sooner or later going to get onto the Bible as evidence, and the reliability of the gospels (1). Or it should, really. But so often and really quite amusingly, it becomes about the OT. And inevitably about Genesis, and the debunk of genesis is Evolution (2). Thus the debate seems to come down to debating Genesis, and where it and "Evilooshun" seem to clash pivotally - the Flood.
It is remarkable how Darwin vs Genesis has become almost more important than the Gospel claims. In fact Deep time palaeontology and geology is no part of the atheist case, but becomes so, really because atheists have to refer to science as a reliable basis of fact. Believers have to counter that, first by pretending that science supports them and, when it doesn't, by attacking science - while trying to hi -jack its' credit (3) with a few believers with Phd's fake or real, and some even relevant, as the True science while an international atheist conspiracy bribes global scientists to say that evolution is gradual change over millions of years and the earth is 4 -5 billion years old, when they know that it is really dogs from cats and it was made a few thousand years ago.
But there, I'm getting into mocking rather than explaining, and I meant to say how simply studying evolution to counter the YE Creationists claims (which are often ingenious, plausible -sounding and even quite clever - if you don't know better) becomes interesting in itself.
Just pre -Cambrian life several hundred million years of it, a near extinction of the bacteria and the change from fives (plantlike) animals to moving ones, is absorbing. And really a debunk of the 'Cambrian explosion' myth -nonsense is sorely needed.
(1) I think that a lot of the debunk could be very much better and based on the text itself, not on denial of miracles, and the 'mythicist' argument against Jesus went down the tube, recently. Atheists should guard against repeating claims without checking them. Even atheists ones.
(2) or rather Evilooshun, which to the believer mindset means scientific explanation for how life, the universe and everything came to be without a god having dunnit. Which is why arguing 'cosmic origins is not evolution -theory' is ineffective. To the Believer - it is.
(3) it's remarkable how often the believer case seems to hang on the opinions of Authorities rather than on what the evidence says.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-30-2017 at 07:43 AM..
I have to disagree that atheists feel they can act any way they want without consequence. I used to be a believer and can tell you I am much more compassionate today than I used to be. I used to think that all people needed to do was pray more, fast more, believe more to end their problems. I now realize that what those people needed was a friend, someone to listen to them and be with them in their pain, not offer patent answers.
On the other hand, I see people in society who claim to be Christians who act or have acted in the most despicable ways. And if anyone on here has seen the news in recent weeks, they'll know exactly what I'm talking about. It appears that some Christians are the ones who act like there are no consequences.
Yes, but that's you as an individual. There are others out there who will be empowered by atheism. They are the strong. You are the weak. At least in this situation, considering your belief structures.
After reading some of the posts on this forum, I thought it odd that so many atheists come out of their way to come here to attempt to discredit Christ.
If I were an atheist, I wouldn't care. Nothing like this would matter.
I mean, why would I care about what someone else believes?
In fact, some of them can get downright rude about it. But for some reason, atheists feel they have the right to do it.
Could it be they are searching for the truth?
Or maybe they see the truth, but they're fighting to submit to the one true God?
For all the atheists who lurk here, what do you say?
I'm not an atheist, but all the discrediting I've seen has to do with fighting against religious people using their beliefs to oppress or denigrate other people.
So then, duh.
If you say, "You suck bc Jesus said so," then of course they will say, "There is no Jesus, you brainwashed tool!"
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.
So no, atheists are not promoting/indoctrinating anyone into a dark religion/ideology like Christianity.
During the first three centuries, the Romans tried to brutally deconvert the Christians. Crucifixion. Stripping naked and immersed in cold water for hours. Given to lions. They continued to proclaim their message, and refuse to forsake Christ, even when faced with death.
You know what happened? These actual martyrs (not Muslim genocide "martyrs") began to sway people's hearts. They had killed off the Jewish Christian, and suddenly we were dealing with Roman citizen Christians and Roman guard Christians. In fact, at one point there were 30 roman guards all immersed in cold water for hours on end. One broke, and begged Rome for forgiveness, jumping out of the water. Another guard went in, having converted sometime before or during.
When people criticize Christianity or worse persecute it, they give Christians a platform to testify. This is what Jesus meant by love your enemy, because in a sick way, they are actually helping you out.
Not buying your plea to silence. Ignoring bad ideologies/cults does not weaken them. I’m an example of a convert from religious indoctrination by confrontation.
Yes, but that's you as an individual. There are others out there who will be empowered by atheism. They are the strong. You are the weak. At least in this situation, considering your belief structures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
I'm not an atheist, but all the discrediting I've seen has to do with fighting against religious people using their beliefs to oppress or denigrate other people.
So then, duh.
If you say, "You suck bc Jesus said so," then of course they will say, "There is no Jesus, you brainwashed tool!"
There's a fair bit of 'atheist professor' imagery there - the atheists screaming and snarling and spitting. We rather tend to see that with the theist side (righteous anger) but let that go.
We are indeed empowered by atheism; with letting Go of the religious claims comes a tremendous relief. I know - I have felt it myself, even though I was never a believer, and it comes with realizing that the threat of what will happen yo us if we do not believe is ...let go.
But what also empowers atheists is the validity of the case. I have done or followed so many debates and discussions and knock -down -drag -out rows and pretty much always the evidence and logic supports atheism. True, there are some gaps for God and some practical value in religious practice, but they do not of themselves do a darn thing to validate the claims of religion.
As Plato has it Timaeus, I believe: "It is easy to withstand Socrates; it is the truth that you cannot withstand".
And yes, we do not think there was a Jesus. That is, not a Jesus Christ - the Jesus of the gospels. The Christian version of a Jesus who really existed and was for sure some kind of Jew with a mission, though what that was is debated. I would say that Jesus -apologetics is in its' infancy as compared to the Evilooshun -debate, which is surely winding down - "polystrates" (another Creationist sciencey -sounding term that they invented and has sorta caught on) having been explained as Not being evidence for the Noachian Flood was surely the nail in the Creationist coffin.
And I may add that the discovery of fossil trees one growing on top of another shows that rapid burial in mud -layers in swampy condistions with new trees growing on top totally debunks the Flood -theory.
I just love Pendleton sporting his his lab Coat to prove his science credentials, and Billy Crone's hardsell hucksterish raving. I have a seen quite a few Polystrate - proves - the Flood vids and it is remarkable how often the trick is similar - the poison in the bacon. Or rather the way the one pivotal lie is buried (I first came across this as a teen in the Lost tribe went to Britain apologetic) in a load of incidental stuff.
The Lie being (after dismissing a couple of Impossible scenarios) that the Biblical Flood is the only possible answer. Then you rush on with a lot of slides of the stuff and accounts of the trip to see it or anything to make the lie sound like the result of proper research.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-30-2017 at 08:30 AM..
There is obvious bias in atheism. Atheism declares that there is no God. Am I missing something?
You're missing the point: Atheists see no evidence for any kind of a god, therefore they do not believe one exists.
If an atheist should be presented with incontrovertible evidence s/he is wrong, then they would no longer be one.
Simple. For some.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
because it's good to help, rather than earn brownie points with God or attract recruits, it isn't enough to justify it having the power and influence it has.
I'm getting into mocking rather than explaining, and I meant to say how simply studying evolution to counter the YE Creationists claims (which are often ingenious, plausible -sounding and even quite clever - if you don't know better) becomes interesting in itself. 
