The prevalence of 'arrogance' in Christian vs Atheist debates

To a Christian God is not irrelevant. I understand that you are saying for people to do good to one another and I’m sure a lot of us do the best we can there.

However, to say God is irrelevant and in the same breath say

“the petty fighting needs to stop.”

well it seems to me you’re making a fight.

However, what I would like to say is no one should argue over God. A person knows where each other stands on a subject and you can be friends without arguing over our Lord.

Now asking a question for studying and research is one thing, but to post things just to start an argument is wrong.

Jesus would not want us to argue. He never did. He simply would make a statement people would either believe Him or not.

Anyways that is my opinion. Since you posted this on ats I guess that means anyone can respond.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
It is also targeted at the atheists who are as much at fault as the fanatical religious on these boards. It is targeted at these arrogant people who hold the assumption that there is no chance of a God or Gods existing.

Where in hell are these atheists?

You are all proving my OP correct by the last few posts.

Playing semantics about the way I structure sentences, the choice of words i used and your perceptions of 'ulterior motives'. Hell, I'm a poor writer at the best of times but I really didn't think my lack of english skills was enough to lose the message in my post.

Let me clarify myself again so you can all get on to discussing the idea behind my thread and not your perceptions of what I am trying to say.

To a Christian, I know God is not irrelevant. He should mean a hell (excuse the pun) of a lot to you. I'm not having a go at your belief system or the relevance of your deity.

In contrast, I also acknowledge that my description of an atheist in my OP was also fairly poor. Apologies if it offended anyone. Let's move past my bad choice of words here...

What I am trying to get across is that a belief, or lack there of, in a deity should be no measure of the kind of person you are. It reflects badly on both Christianity and Atheism when (what started as) intelligent debates are lowered to mud slinging, name calling and 'I'm right, no matter what' attitudes.

I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. The thread topic was simply a play on the topic JesusIsTruth started earlier in the week, and since it used the word arrogant, I paraphrased him to get my point across. (The thread title has now been changed to more accurately reflect my targeted message). What is ironic is that JesusIsTruth has been one of the more supportive members in this topic so far, and kudos to him for stepping up and admitting that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

What I want to see is a return to intelligent, structured debate between the 2 concerned parties without the pettiness that has been prevalent of late. I don't want to see any members banned because their buttons have been pushed and their response goes out of hand.

The vibe I'm getting from most responses in this thread is that some members are proud of the fact that they anger others and are proud that they can come out on top of a debate, even if their success only relies on their ability to drive their opponent away in disgust.

I really hope that isn't the case.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by fooffstarr]

Originally posted by pshkwamy
claiming that someone is no longer atheist because they say what they think god would want and wouldn't want is absurd, maybe they are god, or maybe they are trying to explain something to christians without offending them and straight up saying god doesn't exist, its all about getting a point across and fooffstarr did a fine job of that, had you payed attention you would have agreed, but I guess you aren't exactly the most peaceful of atheists and would rather convince someone wrong on a point they believe true.

I'm not an athiest. My God is the universe. Actually claiming that you are athiest then speculating on what God would want and publically denouncing anyone straying from that will IS a contradiction. If you are athiest you don't believe in God because there is no evidence of God. As an athiest God is irrelevant to you. To begin speculating on what God wants as an athiest is to become a thiest. Why? Because you must begin to explain how you know this. How do you know God would want this? Why do you know God would want this? Either it comes down to complete factless opinion which means absolutely nothing to begin with, which if you're an athiest you shouldn't be trying to appeal to thiests anyway through their God because that is pure unevidential deception and manipulation - only using God when and where convenient even when you don't believe in it (sacrificing your beliefs and your logic to effect a certain group of people whether factual or not - propaganda).

And you're wrong. Had I not payed attention I might have agreed. However, I payed full attention and absolutely disagreed. Yes, I would rather prove the truth than allow false "beliefs" to continue to deceive and ruin society. For a religion or religions supposedly based around the truth, they sure don't do a good job.

I also notice you capitalize the word god, silly thing to do for something that you believe doesn't exist.

Who ever said that I don't believe in my idea of God? Take your assumptions somewhere else.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
It is targeted at the 'arrogant people' that assume they are correct based off faith alone.

So, you're talking about the religious? True athiests and scientists, by definition, don't use the tool of faith. We all know who says "you've gotta have faith." Hint, hint.

It is also targeted at the atheists who are as much at fault as the fanatical religious on these boards. It is targeted at these arrogant people who hold the assumption that there is no chance of a God or Gods existing.

I suppose this includes you, since you consider yourself athiest

This helps NOONE and makes both sides of the debate look like 10 year olds fighting over the existence of Santa Clause.

Wrong. It makes one side look as if they are arguing to convert people into Santa Clause believers, whereas the other side has the santa suit and says "look, it's just your pastor, your idea of God is either wrong or God is really all around you, and if God is omnipresent then God can't only be the things that you say it is, it must be everything."

It is a statement which i whole-heartedly believe. God, whether he exists or not, would not want to see his creations fighting amongst themselves about his existence.

So here you go having faith. How do you know God has creations? How do you know God is a he? How do you know what God wants? You're believing something without evidence, that is called faith.

WHY SHOULD A BELIEF (OR LACK THERE OF) IN GOD MATTER?

Because they start wars, they spread ignorance and schizophrenia, intellectual deterioration, detachment from physical reality and lack of interest to the scientific world and the objective universe like a wild fire. Yet nothing they say can be verified (ignorance).

Spend less time preaching (both sides) and get out in your community. Be a good, moral person and do good things. It shouldn't matter what religion you are, if more people actually walked the walk and got out there and made a difference this world would be a better place.

I do. Unfortunately those affiliated with an institution that is basically a gang for God come across people that are affiliated with another institution, they begin judging each other and comparing beliefs, neither of them can ever prove whose God is the true God because all of the religious Gods on this planet are illogical and false. At which point they either leave hating each other, converting one another (which does nothing to enlighten either of them) to one another's ignorance, damning each other by the idea of their own Gods, or killing each other. Logic is good and moral, someone that lives their life subscribing to ideas that are illogical with no attempt to be otherwise is an immoral person to me.

Can both sides agree to disagree on the existence of God, or at least discuss the topic in a civilized manner without the use of terms like 'arrogant', 'ignorant', 'wretch' (JesusIsTruth).

An intellect would consider it very civilized to insert the word ignorance where necessary. On the other hand an emotionally sensitive soldier for God or unintellectual Human will view the word ignorant as incivil when in fact it is being used in proper context.

If everyone that was overzealous about a belief spent less time trying to push that belief on others and more time helping others the world would be far less problematic.

Wouldn't that be nice? The beliefs are currently the problem, take a look around. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, solving it will, and you don't solve it by ignoring it.

EDIT: Topic name change to avoid confusion.

So it's okay for you to use the word arrogant still, but you still don't want others to use it? Still a shot in the foot.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by AveIMil

Originally posted by fooffstarr
It is also targeted at the atheists who are as much at fault as the fanatical religious on these boards. It is targeted at these arrogant people who hold the assumption that there is no chance of a God or Gods existing.

Where in hell are these atheists?

Right here, YOU said;

There seems to be a large amount of lunatics and wilfully delusional people on this forum. I’m guessing many atheists just got sick of trying to discuss matters rationally with a brick wall that just spouts the same things over and over.

and here;

Yes, apes created the universe. That's what I believe.

You are seriously delusional. Please check in to a mental institution, perhaps there's a chance for you to get well still.

and here;

Of course, Christian’s won’t follow this logic because they are unwilling to accept a premise if it goes against their precious fraud of a Bible.

You asked.........


[edit on 16-6-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by fooffstarr
I think you are all missing the point.

What I'm trying to say, regardless of my lack of word smithing ability, is that petty bickering, name calling and holier-than-thou attitudes accomplish nothing.

If as much time was spent on volunteering or fund raising for charities etc. than was spent bickering on these boards between opposing faiths than we could all make a difference.

But then the forum would die...

j/k

I think the bickering is really between certain people. I can have very reasonable discussions with many theists, some on here I consider intertubz friends. We discuss an issue, pick apart each other's positions, and agree to disagree on most issues. Hopefully we both learn a little bit about the others position.

Other users, virtually impossible. I generally only get slightly narked by intellectual dishonesty, obfuscation, and an inability to follow arguments. Even abuse aimed at me I tend to find funny.

The internet is not serious business. Well not to me. I surf in the service of harvesting lulz.

This thread has turned into exactly what i was fighting against. If JesusIsTruth and LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal want to continue their personal conflict, feel free to do so elsewhere.

OK, I guess it was more specific than atheists vs. theists.

This topic was created to try and start a change in the attitudes here. Yes, it may seem arrogant and big of me to even try, but i believe that we have far more to lose as a community if someone doesn't. Long standing, respectable members of these boards are as susceptible to provocation in religious debate as anyone else, and i can't blame them, but i don't want members to get so heated in atheist vs Christian debates that they get themselves banned.

Again, I think it's quite possible for discussions to be fairly entertaining, enlightening, and even a tad heated without being of great concern. As long as one main aim is to learn about other people and their beliefs, and it doesn't descend into all-out nasty vilifying war, not sure it's a really a big problem.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Wow... you make a post that long and that wordy and you STILL miss the point.

If you'd bother to read what I posted above, which clarifies my first post, you could have avoided writing about 5 of those paragraphs.

Here let me quote myself to save you having to scroll up... thank me later:

Playing semantics about the way I structure sentences, the choice of words i used and your perceptions of 'ulterior motives'. Hell, I'm a poor writer at the best of times but I really didn't think my lack of english skills was enough to lose the message in my post.

Let me clarify myself again so you can all get on to discussing the idea behind my thread and not your perceptions of what I am trying to say.

To a Christian, I know God is not irrelevant. He should mean a hell (excuse the pun) of a lot to you. I'm not having a go at your belief system or the relevance of your deity.

In contrast, I also acknowledge that my description of an atheist in my OP was also fairly poor. Apologies if it offended anyone. Let's move past my bad choice of words here...

What I am trying to get across is that a belief, or lack there of, in a deity should be no measure of the kind of person you are. It reflects badly on both Christianity and Atheism when (what started as) intelligent debates are lowered to mud slinging, name calling and 'I'm right, no matter what' attitudes.

Glad to see some of the initial readers, such as melatonin, at least understand what I was saying and are addressing it.

In response to you, melatonin:

lulz are indeed a good thing. I can has cheezeburger?

I also agree that a bit of heat in a debate can also end up producing good results. Problem is, it seems that there is no debate left in this forum. It is no longer a debate, it seems to just be a back and forth of name calling and rehashing of the same stereotypes.

Threads like the one currently underway about stances on the death penalty, I think, are far more enlightening about the beliefs of others than a topic like
'[insert belief system here] are out to get us; why?'.

I guess you are right in some respects though, the internet is the internet and the whole 'sticks and stones' thing comes into play. Would just be good if, like the pinned topic says, people could 'play nice'.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by fooffstarr]

Originally posted by fooffstarr
In response to you, melatonin:

lulz are indeed a good thing. I can has cheezeburger?

You can haz moar ATS cookies

I also agree that a bit of heat in a debate can also end up producing good results. Problem is, it seems that there is no debate left in this forum. It is no longer a debate, it seems to just be a back and forth of name calling and rehashing of the same stereotypes.

I have the same sentiments. I spent a few weeks away and have come back and tried to start influencing a bit of change, perhaps raise some new interesting conspiracy/scandal topics which move away from the tedious discussions we can readily fall into (e.g., god exists! god is a delusion! evolution sucks! creationism sucks! jesus ate my hamster!)

'[insert belief system here] are out to get us; why?'.

Hey! My most recent thread can be viewed that way a tad.

"Evangelical brainwashers creating christian army to conquer the world for jebus"

I worded it a bit different though, lol. Although I think the above title might have helped attract attention and stimulate more discussion.

I guess you are right in some respects though, the internet is the internet and the whole 'sticks and stones' thing comes into play. Would just be good if, like the pinned topic says, people could 'play nice'.

As I said, I think being playful isn't so bad. Discussions can be pretty boring sometimes, so a bit of colour can help. When it gets really personal, then that is not helpful.

My problem is that I just don't want to put anyone on ignore along with somewhat an inability to overlook slightly 'retarded' posts. I have an inherent motivation to clarify misconceptions. So I get pulled into completely useless discussions which result in no real benefit. A can of troll-b-gone could be useful.

I'm learning though.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by fooffstarr


It is no one's fault but your own that you can not properly express yourself through words nor cessate from contradiction.

This is a two page waste of bandwidth because you can't properly express your intents through the English language with words, logic and meaning.

I'd advise you learn how to become literate and understand what it is that you believe in or don't believe in before you attempt to play the senseless mediator, maybe it would actually make you a senseful mediator, and at that point you might just realize why the arguments happen and why people are called "ignorant". You can't play both sides of the ball if you're in it for truth. You're either on one team or the other.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Some christians are arrogant. Some athiests are arrogant.. and then we have people who elect themselves message board disciplinarians who, in their self proffessed wisdom tells both the atheists and christians to go sit in opposite corners like good little school children till we can behave according to his standards.

..no thats not arrogant at all.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


So it's arrogance now to hope that people have enough decency to be able to discuss things with one another without the need to resort to name calling and childish comments?

As I stated earlier in the thread, It was simply an attempt to lighten to tone a bit in the religious debates and see if the subject matter could be discussed more often then the posters.

Yourself and LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal seem happy to continue acting like children and online bullies, so feel free to. I've said my part, and once again, as i said earlier, the only thing i could do is try.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Thanks for starting the personal comments now, you've just proven me correct again. So I'm illiterate now?

How is it possible, when an issue is so touchy with so many people, to please everyone with one post? I can only write it in the least offensive way and hope that I haven't structured a sentence badly enough that it can be misinterpreted.

So sorry, oh master of the English language. Please, if you are so adamant about continuing your debating with the personal sniping and childish comments, go back to reading your thesaurus. There is nothing for you to see in this thread.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
reply to post by riley

 

So it's arrogance now to hope that people have enough decency to be able to discuss things with one another without the need to resort to name calling and childish comments?

Ooh! leacturing us on decency now? In that case my answer to the question about your own arrogance is a resounding YES.

As I stated earlier in the thread, It was simply an attempt to lighten to tone a bit in the religious debates and see if the subject matter could be discussed more often then the posters.

Talking down to people about arrogence from your self appointed high moral ground was never going to lighten the tone.

Yourself and LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal seem happy to continue acting like children and online bullies, so feel free to.

Actually I have not been posting much lately because of the drama and have indeed been on the defence rather than the offense [though I realise that can be subjective at times] but calling us "bullies and "children"? What did you just say about resorting to name calling..?



I promise to be good from now on headmaster.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Wow you take things out of context.

I NEVER claimed to be anything, nor do I think myself above anything or anyone else on this board.

As I've said now countless times, it was just an effort to lighten the mood in religious debates and save members who do get offended by someone else from getting banned.

Also, as I said previously, this was a humble suggestion. A suggestion is all I am capable of. I was debating with myself whether to post it at all, because I had the feeling I would be attacked for it, but guess what? I'm still happy I did post it.

If you are unable or unwilling to at least explore the idea I am presenting (mature, intelligent debate without the flaming) then there is nothing I can do about it. Once again (wow I feel like a broken record), as I have said before, It was a suggestion and entirely up to members whether they ignored it, considered it or embraced it.

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further because It seems no matter what I say my words are twisted. My intentions were completely directed to helping ATS and It's members, but obviously, that isn't enough for some people.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by fooffstarr]

reply to post by fooffstarr


Ironic that you are now proclaiming to be my victim even though in your last post you accused me of being childish and of being a bully. I did not have to take you out of context.. thats just a lame excuse for you to disown your own bad behaviour, cry foul and blame others. Your claims of "just wanting to help" people after having just called me and LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal names is a copout.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Maybe I called you names because you both entered my thread with nothing to add but to accuse me of considering myself on a 'moral high ground' and having 'self professed wisdom'.

As far as I can tell, neither of you have actually addressed the issue I raised in my first post... you've both just attacked me for having a go. I stood up and posted this topic because I personally thought the level of bickering and personal attacks in religious debate threads had hit a disgusting level, and who knows, maybe I was wrong to even bother trying to address this.

My question to you is, why would you bother to post on the topic in the first place if it was only to say this:

then we have people who elect themselves message board disciplinarians who, in their self proffessed wisdom tells both the atheists and christians to go sit in opposite corners like good little school children till we can behave according to his standards.

It doesn't help anyone. I've been getting frustrated with the fact that people, and not only you, have been posting again and again how 'arrogant' they think I am for posting this topic. Thats your opinion and that's fine, but the ATS T&C states to discuss the idea and not the poster. You can think I am arrogant all you like but PLEASE DISCUSS THE ISSUE I RAISED!

U2U me all the personal abuse you like if that is what floats your boat, but can we please stick to the topic, which is, the possibility (or lack there of) of debating religious topics without the descent into bickering and flaming.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


...he just compared the level of maturity of the discussions, not the subject matter

you're the one attempting to make inflammatory remarks.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Thanks for starting the personal comments now, you've just proven me correct again. So I'm illiterate now?

You've not expunged so much. Your lack of ability to understand yourself and attempt to charter to both parties is an inherent logical flaw when not considering all of the parties and not deliberating whether or not one of the parties may actually be right when another is wrong and then the follow through delusion that this brainwashing of constant denial of facts and repelling of logic ensues.

How is it possible, when an issue is so touchy with so many people, to please everyone with one post?

It's not. You can't. It's not about pleasing everyone, it's about figuring out what is true and what isn't and building your case upon that with more truths.

I can only write it in the least offensive way and hope that I haven't structured a sentence badly enough that it can be misinterpreted.

You could have taken more time and I know you could have done WAY better than your initial post if you would have used self reflection, introspection and extrospection, third person observing and so on, but we all learn our lessons over time, myself included. If you're trying to appeal to everyone, you must put yourself in their shoes and go over every possible scenerio in your head. You must also rigorously and pedantically re-read your own words incessantly to look for any flaws.

debating with the personal sniping and childish comments,

Personal sniping? You mean using logic? I find personal sniping to be titling a thread that generally classifies anyone under its target audience to be arrogant.

go back to reading your thesaurus.

Gladly, beats people that'd rather not.

There is nothing for you to see in this thread.

Well, there is always something, but I understand what you mean, nothing of "prevalence".

Call it providence that I have brought your mistakes to your attention, or call it slander. One of these options will allow you to grow more than the other.