Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

The Christian double standards about atheists

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:05:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.

Assumed Authority.

Claim the agency you act on behalf of is perfect. This allows you absolution of responsibility, in as much as you can claim you are acting in a perfect fashion (as the agency you are acting for is perfect), and allow you the ability to admonish others (as the agency you are acting for is perfect). Its what religion is all about, bro.

Two of our most vocal members in this forum have demonstrated that point. Not to say they realized it, of course.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:35:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Religion teaches us to take all of the moral determinations we are able to make ourselves (i.e. stealing is wrong) and credit it towards a God. This is what leads people as they move on in life to develop this idea of God being the source of their own morality, which in turn is why you will almost never hear a believer tell you that they disagree with God's morality. What they interpret as a life long struggle to understand Gods standards is actually a struggle to understand their own. So when something happens that they disagree with, it is necessarily against God's standards since they are actually one in the same (in their minds), hence the "not a true Christian" mantra.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:39:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
Most of the comments I've seen from Christians about the why some person(s) commit injustice is due to the selfish part of human nature, not because someone is an atheist. So that double-standard question would probably need to be addressed to particular individuals who you know have made that statement.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:45:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
Most of the comments I've seen from Christians about the why some person(s) commit injustice is due to the selfish part of human nature, not because someone is an atheist.

That was some sensible Christians you have been talking with indeed. I however see Christians (and other religious people here) say something like this:

Atheist doing atrocities: Because of atheism, without any morals.
Religious doing atrocities: They haven't followed the true teachings, so they were only 60% religious, and then the 40% fake-religious part made the crime.

So that double-standard question would probably need to be addressed to particular individuals who you know have made that statement.

I have been asking some of these individuals directly but they conveniently chose to not answer. Another good thing with doing a thread like this is to catch up even more of these people who could see their hypocrisy.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:50:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
Most of the comments I've seen from Christians about the why some person(s) commit injustice is due to the selfish part of human nature, not because someone is an atheist.

I think you're both right, Roderick. I suspect that the rationale goes:

If our faith is true and all humans are selfish, then the most selfish humans should of course be those who deny all faith.

Therefore as an act of piety, we shall search diligently for evidence that atheists are selfish, evil and dissolute, and then announce that they are as salutary lessons, while leaving it to the atheists, who are not of our faith, to demonstrate otherwise.


Vilification as an act of worship: the Israelites glorified it in the Tanakh, and Christians have been doing it since the early centuries of their faith -- even to one another, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:24:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:50:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
Most of the comments I've seen from Christians about the why some person(s) commit injustice is due to the selfish part of human nature, not because someone is an atheist.

I think you're both right, Roderick. I suspect that the rationale goes:

If our faith is true and all humans are selfish, then the most selfish humans should of course be those who deny all faith.

Therefore as an act of piety, we shall search diligently for evidence that atheists are selfish, evil and dissolute, and then announce that they are as salutary lessons, while leaving it to the atheists, who are not of our faith, to demonstrate otherwise.


Vilification as an act of worship: the Israelites glorified it in the Tanakh, and Christians have been doing it since the early centuries of their faith -- even to one another, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
I certainly wouldn't imply that vilification doesn't happen among some Christian individuals and circles, but it goes on among some atheists. There are atheists that will flat out state that religion should be abolished, the religious are sub-human. Someone like yourself would say something like religious monuments/artifacts should be preserved as part of our culture, where some atheists actively seek to remove them.

In the U.S., mistrust of atheists/atheism is not all due to vilification. Agnostics have expressed distrust of atheists because they feel that someone who feels accountable to a creator is more likely to be more just in places of high position. And these are people that are not sure if a creator exists.

The OP mentioned the True Scotsman issue. Well, there's truth to it in that people in general judge Christians by character. Fathers, even if not Christian, will often prefer that an observably straight professed born-again Christian take their daughter to the prom, rather than someone who makes no claim to accountability to a creator.

And, it's true that there is an element in American society that professes Christianity that are not Christ-like. They are generally the one's that relate atheism to communism, atheism is unpatriotic, etc. More of a militant sort of mind-set. And like anything else, it just takes talking to someone for awhile to see where they are at.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:29:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:24:18 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:50:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
Most of the comments I've seen from Christians about the why some person(s) commit injustice is due to the selfish part of human nature, not because someone is an atheist.

I think you're both right, Roderick. I suspect that the rationale goes:

If our faith is true and all humans are selfish, then the most selfish humans should of course be those who deny all faith.

Therefore as an act of piety, we shall search diligently for evidence that atheists are selfish, evil and dissolute, and then announce that they are as salutary lessons, while leaving it to the atheists, who are not of our faith, to demonstrate otherwise.


Vilification as an act of worship: the Israelites glorified it in the Tanakh, and Christians have been doing it since the early centuries of their faith -- even to one another, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
I certainly wouldn't imply that vilification doesn't happen among some Christian individuals and circles, but it goes on among some atheists.

Roderick, the topical question isn't whether atheists vilify Christians (some do), or whether it's right to do so (it's not.)

The question is whether Christians vilify atheists (they do, and have done so for many centuries), whether they see it as a righteous expression of faith (they do), whether it is harmful (it is), and whether it's reasonable, well-evidenced and just (it's none of these), and therefore whether it's by implication evil perpetrated on behalf of religious zeal (it is.)

Unless there's any part of that assessment you disagree with, the only question remaining to you is whether you support it on grounds of faith or condemn it on grounds of morality.

I await your answer.
rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 2:52:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.

Most historians consider the crusades to be a long overdue and appropriate response to centuries of Islamic oppression most wars are not about religion but about other issues.
Christians who commit atrocities are being inconsistent with what they profess to believe,atheists,who commit atrocities are being consistent with survival of the fittest type thinking.As Dawkins has said " if evolution is true,if all our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions in the brain,there is no right or wrong,no good or evil,just blind pitiless indifference"
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 2:57:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 2:52:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.

Most historians consider the crusades to be a long overdue and appropriate response to centuries of Islamic oppression most wars are not about religion but about other issues.

Great! Then this applies to Stalin and Zedong too! It was not about atheism, it was about other stuff!

Christians who commit atrocities are being inconsistent with what they profess to believe

No, they just have different opinions and interpretations than you have. Oddly enough, these Christian terrorists can use this card against you too. For example, "you shall not kill" could be interpreted to anything from "do not even kill mosquitoes" to "it's totally OK to torture and kill unbelievers though".

atheists,who commit atrocities are being consistent with survival of the fittest type thinking.

So why haven't I commited anything like this, being an atheist and all?

As Dawkins has said " if evolution is true,if all our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions in the brain,there is no right or wrong,no good or evil,just blind pitiless indifference"

Cool cool. I don't always listen to Dawkins though. He is far from perfect.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 4:17:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:29:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:24:18 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:50:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:39:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.
Most of the comments I've seen from Christians about the why some person(s) commit injustice is due to the selfish part of human nature, not because someone is an atheist.

I think you're both right, Roderick. I suspect that the rationale goes:

If our faith is true and all humans are selfish, then the most selfish humans should of course be those who deny all faith.

Therefore as an act of piety, we shall search diligently for evidence that atheists are selfish, evil and dissolute, and then announce that they are as salutary lessons, while leaving it to the atheists, who are not of our faith, to demonstrate otherwise.


Vilification as an act of worship: the Israelites glorified it in the Tanakh, and Christians have been doing it since the early centuries of their faith -- even to one another, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
I certainly wouldn't imply that vilification doesn't happen among some Christian individuals and circles, but it goes on among some atheists.

Roderick, the topical question isn't whether atheists vilify Christians (some do), or whether it's right to do so (it's not.)

The question is whether Christians vilify atheists (they do, and have done so for many centuries), whether they see it as a righteous expression of faith (they do), whether it is harmful (it is), and whether it's reasonable, well-evidenced and just (it's none of these), and therefore whether it's by implication evil perpetrated on behalf of religious zeal (it is.)

Unless there's any part of that assessment you disagree with, the only question remaining to you is whether you support it on grounds of faith or condemn it on grounds of morality.

I await your answer.
For one.

Vilification as an act of worship: the Israelites glorified it in the Tanakh, and Christians have been doing it since the early centuries of their faith -- even to one another

If the Israelites vilified in the Bible, it doesn't mean it was condoned by God. Examples would be the Ninevites (we could say vilified by Jonah), and the Samaritans (we could say vilified by the religious sect). It's obvious in scripture this was not God's intention. As far as vilification being part of their worship, they did give thanks to God for deliverance from specific peoples, but they didn't have political correctness as we know it today.

This is where I'm having a problem.

the topical question isn't whether atheists vilify Christians (some do)

vs.

The question is whether Christians vilify atheists (they do, and have done so for many centuries)

You're sweeping generalization gives me the impression that you are doing the vilifying.

To answer your question, vilification is immoral. And it's clearly not condoned in scripture.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:33:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.

You are proposing the same false dichotomy as those you are mad at.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:34:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:33:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:08:55 PM, Jovian wrote:
When many Christians talk about the Crusades and religious wars in the medieval ages: "Those wars were mostly about money and greed! Nothing with Christianity to do!"

When these Christians talk about Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, who claimed religious motives in his bombings against for example abortion clinics: "That guy is not a true Christian!"

And at the same time, the same Christians make comments like these regarding Stalin and Zedong: "Hmm, and he was an atheist. I see a connection! He did this because of atheism!" (when Stalin even didn't kill in the name of atheism whereas Eric Rudolph killed in the name of Christianity)

Why are these double standards made? The Christian in this example first applies "correlation does not equal causation" at first, for later on abandoning it. He is also doing a no true scotsman about Eric Rudolph.

You are proposing the same false dichotomy as those you are mad at.

The false dichotomy of what? Please explain.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:13:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:24:18 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
In the U.S., mistrust of atheists/atheism is not all due to vilification. Agnostics have expressed distrust of atheists because they feel that someone who feels accountable to a creator is more likely to be more just in places of high position
There was once a chap in a very high position who justified an unjust war because his creator told him to wage it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin