Why do Christians outnumber atheists?

[pood]

I generally don't respond to apparently mentally deranged posters who threaten to kill me.

Umm... This is some ridiculously exaggerated bullshittery.

1) Threatening other members of the forum is 100% against the rules. If you believe you've been threatened, report the post.
2) Calling other posters crazy, and euphemistic variations thereof, is also against the rules. Thus I have reported your post.

You are on ignore.

The guy who opposes censorship sure likes to censor a lot of people from addressing him!

 

[steve_bank]

An old Twilight Zone story might be about a man who finds a machine to disappear those who he doesn't like hearing, and in the end finding the only person he has to talk to is himself..

 

[laughing dog]

To seek truth is to think logically and base conclusions on that logic and any relevant facts. I strongly recommend it!

A recommendation is more convincing if it comes from someone with experience/ knowledge.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To seek truth is to think logically and base conclusions on that logic and any relevant facts. I strongly recommend it!

What you are describing is an ultimately flawed method of forming conclusions that is sometimes incorrect due to regular bias, a cap on personal creativity, fallacious thinking, the inability to observe relevant things, incorrect premises, etc. If that is your personal best, then you can sometimes get stuck with a wrong-headed idea and keep repeating it over and over. Two possible improvements for you:

1. Have a little humility. Treat the subject matter more tentatively, submit your hypotheses for communication in a competition, such as the free marketplace of ideas, let them be challenged by others so you can understand competing ideas, what your lack of creativity may have led to, what false premises and logical fallacies may be at play, what could be data that you didn't think about or measure. It has to really be a give and take or you have to have the ability to admit when your idea is failing and how to either make tweaks or throw it out.
2. and/or decide how to test your idea using objective measures and relevant data. You still will have many of the same problems if you are not thinking about the right scope, not including variables. Likewise, you must have humility because your experimental design should set out to comprehensively prove you wrong. Then, when that fails, you might have some confidence you were right.

 

[Rhea]

Is that True, Seeker? You are in the “christians Only” forum at CARM? Are you lying to them or to us?

I'm being libeled. Plus what I am is not relevant to the discussion.

While you are here on this board saying that you are an atheist,
are you saying “yes I am also in the Christians Only forum at CARM”,
or are you saying that “No I am not in the Christians Only forum at CARM”?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Let me explain what you do. You start threads. People post replies that you don't like or disagree with, so instead of explaining why you don't agree, you light a little fire, by perhaps saying or insinuating that person is lying or does't like being in the minority or is upset etc. Then, being only human, some posters add fuel to the little fire that you started. I've seen this again and again from you. You seem to enjoy watching how high the flames get and you do nothing to put out the flames. For example, when you asked if we were real atheists, you called us liars. When most posters said they supported voluntary assisted euthanasia, you called some posters immoral and said or implied that a person's right to end their suffering was a form of murder. You do this all the time. Then, while you are the flame thrower, throwing the most ad hom attacks, as well as making false implications about people, you accuse others of that, even when all they are doing is criticizing your posts, not directly criticizing you.

I appreciate your criticisms and will keep them in mind as I engage in future discussions. I'm no different in that I can polish my rough spots which is part of truth seeking, after all.

Now, if we can get back to the topic. One criticism against atheism I'm familiar with is that atheists are way too much like Christians having dogmas that they cannot let go of. I'm thinking that many see dogmas as sacred because those dogmas are believed to hold great promise. Unfortunately, the dogmas of atheism seem bleak by comparison to the glories of Christian dogmas which promise eternal life. So who wants the atheist version of religion without the promise of heaven?

 

[steve_bank]

CARM, OMG! It is all there, all of the Christian apologetics and movements, even a secular section.

I will have to sign up. I have never been on a Christian site.

Soldier sounds like a lapsed Catholic who is atheist one moment and Christian the other. His painting atheists as ambiguous would be a projection of his own confused thinking.

I am no psychologist, but he may actually be looking for a truth that resolves his conflict. Atheist are ambiguous, so my ambiguity is ok too.

Christians can be as muddy as anyone else. There are old terms 'Catholic in name only' and 'Sunday go to meeting Christians'.

People arr raised Catholic from birth. As adults they may not follow all the moral rules like no fornication, no abortion and no birth control, but identify as Catholic. When they get married they do it in a church with a priest. Their kids get baptized. Following the rituals.

Sunday go to meeting Christians go to church for community and ritual but do not follow Chrtianity.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Is that True, Seeker? You are in the “christians Only” forum at CARM? Are you lying to them or to us?

I'm being libeled. Plus what I am is not relevant to the discussion.

While you are here on this board saying that you are an atheist,
are you saying “yes I am also in the Christians Only forum at CARM”,
or are you saying that “No I am not in the Christians Only forum at CARM”?

I'm a truth seeker everywhere!

 

[Rhea]

Is that True, Seeker? You are in the “christians Only” forum at CARM? Are you lying to them or to us?

I'm being libeled. Plus what I am is not relevant to the discussion.

While you are here on this board saying that you are an atheist,
are you saying “yes I am also in the Christians Only forum at CARM”,
or are you saying that “No I am not in the Christians Only forum at CARM”?

I'm a truth seeker everywhere!

So, we here at IIDB don’t actually care if you’re a Christian who is pretending to be atheist to try to score some debate points (“Oh! Christianity looks great to this atheist!”). We see Christians do that a lot. It’s pretty easy to spot, but they think they are stealthy, so it ends up kind of amusing.



But I suspect the folks over at CARM would be truly troubled to find you posting in the “Christians Only” forum when you’re not actually a christian. They have a , like, commandment about that. Or to find you being a christian who is lying over hear about your faith (There’s a whole gospel story about denying Jesus).

 

[Swammerdami]

They are harmful folk, over the centuries. And they are still fighting to harm us. We understand the implications quite well.

As you should know "the centuries" tell us that atheists have fought hard to harm Christians too. Let's consider all the truth and not just what we think is favorable to our points of view.

Can you clarify? I thought that "atheists" were rarish over many of the centuries. I'm sure you're not lumping Muslims and Roman pagans in with "atheists."

 

[ideologyhunter]

delete

 

[ideologyhunter]

So who wants the atheist version of religion without the promise of heaven?

Right. Because what truth seeker doesn't choose the rosiest answer? That's fearless truth seekin' for ya.

 

[laughing dog]

Let me explain what you do. You start threads. People post replies that you don't like or disagree with, so instead of explaining why you don't agree, you light a little fire, by perhaps saying or insinuating that person is lying or does't like being in the minority or is upset etc. Then, being only human, some posters add fuel to the little fire that you started. I've seen this again and again from you. You seem to enjoy watching how high the flames get and you do nothing to put out the flames. For example, when you asked if we were real atheists, you called us liars. When most posters said they supported voluntary assisted euthanasia, you called some posters immoral and said or implied that a person's right to end their suffering was a form of murder. You do this all the time. Then, while you are the flame thrower, throwing the most ad hom attacks, as well as making false implications about people, you accuse others of that, even when all they are doing is criticizing your posts, not directly criticizing you.

I appreciate your criticisms and will keep them in mind as I engage in future discussions. I'm no different in that I can polish my rough spots which is part of truth seeking, after all.

Now, if we can get back to the topic. One criticism against atheism I'm familiar with is that atheists are way too much like Christians having dogmas that they cannot let go of. I'm thinking that many see dogmas as sacred because those dogmas are believed to hold great promise. Unfortunately, the dogmas of atheism seem bleak by comparison to the glories of Christian dogmas which promise eternal life. So who wants the atheist version of religion without the promise of heaven?

I am pretty sure you don't know what dogma is. Atheists do not believe in the existence of god. While I cannot speak for all atheists, I do not believe in god because there is no scientific or observable proof of god. Saying that belief in the nonexistence of god is dogma is the same as saying that the belief that people cannot fly by flapping their arms is dogma.

I also think your question is misplaced. Applying Yoda, there is either a heaven or not a heaven. One does not get to pick whether there is one or not. It will not matter after death if one thinks there is a heaven when there is not a heaven. In fact, it may not matter after death if one thinks there is one type of heaven (or no heaven) when there is a different type of heaven. So "wanting" a promise of heaven is pretty pointless.

Now, if you meant to ask "Who accepts there is no heaven", then I accept there is no afterlife. I do accept there is "heaven on earth" - a dog park filled with dogs having fun.

 

[southernhybrid]

Let me explain what you do. You start threads. People post replies that you don't like or disagree with, so instead of explaining why you don't agree, you light a little fire, by perhaps saying or insinuating that person is lying or does't like being in the minority or is upset etc. Then, being only human, some posters add fuel to the little fire that you started. I've seen this again and again from you. You seem to enjoy watching how high the flames get and you do nothing to put out the flames. For example, when you asked if we were real atheists, you called us liars. When most posters said they supported voluntary assisted euthanasia, you called some posters immoral and said or implied that a person's right to end their suffering was a form of murder. You do this all the time. Then, while you are the flame thrower, throwing the most ad hom attacks, as well as making false implications about people, you accuse others of that, even when all they are doing is criticizing your posts, not directly criticizing you.

I appreciate your criticisms and will keep them in mind as I engage in future discussions. I'm no different in that I can polish my rough spots which is part of truth seeking, after all.

Now, if we can get back to the topic. One criticism against atheism I'm familiar with is that atheists are way too much like Christians having dogmas that they cannot let go of. I'm thinking that many see dogmas as sacred because those dogmas are believed to hold great promise. Unfortunately, the dogmas of atheism seem bleak by comparison to the glories of Christian dogmas which promise eternal life. So who wants the atheist version of religion without the promise of heaven?

Could you give us some example of atheist dogmas? I'd like to be educated in them since I'm not aware that I hold any atheist dogmas. I don't believe in any gods and I like the philosophy of Humanism, although it's so idealistic that I doubt humans will ever achieve the goals of Humanism, but you are the first person I've ever known of, who has claimed that atheists hold dogmas. Humanism is just a positive philosophy, not a dogma.

If you are conflicted about your beliefs, that's fine. When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I was very conflicted about my beliefs. I went from the evangelical Christian that I had been raised as, despite always having difficulty accepting that an all loving god would torture nonbelievers in hell for all eternity. Then I became a very liberal Christian with agnostic tendencies for a few years, and then I tried very hard to embrace the religious beliefs of my ex husband, who is a Baha'i. I briefly studied other world religions, but was unable to see any of them as truth, even if some of them did have some positive values. I finally realized there were no gods when I was in my mid twenties, and after the first marriage ended, I was extremely fortunate to find a 2nd husband who was also an atheist. He had been raised as a Catholic, but in his late teens, he was unable to believe what he had been taught as a child. I've been an atheist for over 45 years and I've never felt any fear of hell or any attraction to religion.

If you really think you are truth seeker, my unsolicited advice is to read a lot of books about world religions, as well as lots of science, including my favorite topic, primatology, if you haven't already done so, and see if one religion or secular philosophy fits your needs. I also suggest the book, "Atheism for Dummies". It's my favorite book about atheism. I've met the author twice and he's a wonderful person, who believes, like I do, that we atheists should be allies with people who embrace liberal versions of Christianity because our values are similar. He gives a lot of history about atheism. I've read it twice and have it on my kindle now.

Or you might enjoy the Unitarians, a religious group who's members can believe in any religion or no religion at all, as long as they believe in a liberal interpretation of the religion. I've had atheist friends in the past who were members of a Unitarian Fellowship. There just aren't any near me, or I'd give it a try for community and an opportunity to do some charity work. Imo, values and character are far more important than beliefs, as long as the beliefs aren't cruel and aren't used to hurt others. Sure, there are some nasty atheists who would like to wipe out religion by any means, but they are few and far between. I've met so many atheists in real life, mostly due to my involvement with atheist groups and while most of us are a bit off beat, for lack of a better term, most of us are decent people who would never hurt anyone purposely. By being open about my atheism, I've even met a few other atheists, including a former patient who told me she was an atheist. Sadly, she died a few months after I met her, at age 87. Sometimes I just tell people, I'm a non believer, a humanist, not religious etc. Regardless of the terms I use, I simply have no belief in any gods, angels, fairies, etc. I do love mythology though. I have all kinds of mythological characters decorating my home and garden. I just don't believe they exist in real life.

To me, a truth seeker is someone who is open minded while searching and considers a lot of different viewpoints. But, once you find the truth, it will set you free. Yes, I borrowed that from Christianity, but it applies to atheism, imo, even more. Good luck in finding truth, or maybe I should consider what a nice Christian woman said to me many years ago. "We all have our own truths".when it comes to religion. And, since we atheists can't prove a negative, we just feel content that after all of our truth seeking, we come to terms that there are no gods, or if one is an agnostic atheist, there are no known gods, but perhaps there is one out there that hasn't been discovered. I'm a strong atheist, but I don't evangelize or judge others based on their beliefs in religious mythologies. I hope you can do the same, regardless of where your truth seeking leads you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unfortunately, the dogmas of atheism seem bleak by comparison to the glories of Christian dogmas which promise eternal life. So who wants the atheist version of religion without the promise of heaven?

I like my neighbor's sporty car. I'd love to own his car. I don't wake up one day, sit in his car and say, "that's my car. I believe it's mine." Then, the police come and are asking wtf am I doing in the car. I say, "I believe it's mine." They ask for paperwork. I show them paperwork from the glove compartment. I show them my driver's license and names don't match. But I say, "No, no, that's my name. I believe that is my name." It just doesn't happen. WANT doesn't necessarily translate into BELIEF.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They are harmful folk, over the centuries. And they are still fighting to harm us. We understand the implications quite well.

As you should know "the centuries" tell us that atheists have fought hard to harm Christians too. Let's consider all the truth and not just what we think is favorable to our points of view.

Can you clarify? I thought that "atheists" were rarish over many of the centuries. I'm sure you're not lumping Muslims and Roman pagans in with "atheists."

Sure. It's very common knowledge that Stalin, the "arch atheist" of the 20th century, violently persecuted Christians. One source Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union tells us:

Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.

You can find plenty more. It's odd that you are not aware of these facts. Why didn't you ever research what atheists have done to people in the past?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They are harmful folk, over the centuries. And they are still fighting to harm us. We understand the implications quite well.

As you should know "the centuries" tell us that atheists have fought hard to harm Christians too. Let's consider all the truth and not just what we think is favorable to our points of view.

Can you clarify? I thought that "atheists" were rarish over many of the centuries. I'm sure you're not lumping Muslims and Roman pagans in with "atheists."

Sure. It's very common knowledge that Stalin, the "arch atheist" of the 20th century, violently persecuted Christians. One source Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union tells us:

Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.

You can find plenty more. It's odd that you are not aware of these facts. Why didn't you ever research what atheists have done to people in the past?

He asked about _centuries_ that you claimed, but you answered not in _centuries_ but something that started 2023-1928=95 years ago. That's why he asked the question about pagans and other non-Christians since historically we know something about pagans centuries before warring with other religionists but don't hear much about atheists murdering Christians for centuries like you claimed. I suppose you could try to claim it started in 1917 and come up with 106 years, but that's still not the _centuries_ you claimed.

 

[Swammerdami]

They are harmful folk, over the centuries. And they are still fighting to harm us. We understand the implications quite well.

As you should know "the centuries" tell us that atheists have fought hard to harm Christians too. Let's consider all the truth and not just what we think is favorable to our points of view.

Can you clarify? I thought that "atheists" were rarish over many of the centuries. I'm sure you're not lumping Muslims and Roman pagans in with "atheists."

Sure. It's very common knowledge that Stalin, the "arch atheist" of the 20th century, violently persecuted Christians. One source Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union tells us:
You can find plenty more. It's odd that you are not aware of these facts. Why didn't you ever research what atheists have done to people in the past?

I have enlarged and boldened the phrase YOU wrote and then IGNORED in your reply to me. Stalin's misdeeds were within the latest 100-year period.

In future, consider the beam in thine own eye, before directing your libido at insulting fellow Infidels.
Thanks in advance.

ETA: Thanks,

Don2 (Don1 Revised)​

I see you caught this first!

 

[ideologyhunter]

They are harmful folk, over the centuries. And they are still fighting to harm us. We understand the implications quite well.

As you should know "the centuries" tell us that atheists have fought hard to harm Christians too. Let's consider all the truth and not just what we think is favorable to our points of view.

Can you clarify? I thought that "atheists" were rarish over many of the centuries. I'm sure you're not lumping Muslims and Roman pagans in with "atheists."

Sure. It's very common knowledge that Stalin, the "arch atheist" of the 20th century, violently persecuted Christians. One source Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union tells us:

Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.

You can find plenty more. It's odd that you are not aware of these facts. Why didn't you ever research what atheists have done to people in the past?

Well, why don't we compare the death totals from wars launched by avowed atheists versus wars launched by avowed theists?
It's a dopey endeavor anyway, because a leader's slant on the supernatural can rarely be shown to be the motivating factor in military aggression. Still, if you insist on pushing the "mass slaughters by atheist regimes" trope, I'd be happy to size that up with the slaughters done by theists. If Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot are examples of evil murderous atheists, fine, but nearly all the wars in recorded history were started by avowed believers.

 

[TomC]

Sure. It's very common knowledge that Stalin, the "arch atheist" of the 20th century, violently persecuted Christians.

I don't think that exactly what happened. Stalin, like Mao, turned Communism into a state religion with themselves as high priests.

People like to use them as examples of atheist horrors on the scale of Euro-Christian culture. But they weren't acting as atheists so much as atheists behaving like genocidal religionists. Other religions like Christianity were competitors for the people's allegiance. So they had to go.
Tom