Why are Atheists so set on Proving Christianity Wrong?

Originally Posted by F3

Man did not evolve from apes.

Indeed, we didn't. Apes & us evolved from a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by mikej

I feel hesitant to trust any of those three sources.

*annoyed*

Alright, so the sources I've listed are automatically wrong because... you feel one 'looks unprofessional', another has paragraphs you don't like the look of, and one's from wikipedia?

Wow.

Usually sites like that aren't a very good source to cite. I'd immediately get an F for bad sources if I used any one of those on a research paper.

Also, bad use of the "ironic" smiley.

I'm done talking on this thread now. Bye.

Atheists are so set on proving Christianity wrong because the majority of Christians are so set on proving it right, and therefore proving Atheism wrong. It's a vicious circle. I guess it's impossible for us to *not* argue the beliefs of others with our own, and simply believe what we wish to believe while others do the same.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

You say you like the live and let live deal, but be it here on ZU, or in real life, Atheists challenge my beliefs. They have whole arsenals of information at times. So I ask you atheists: Why? Is there something wrong with Christians?

It goes both ways, really, even if you haven't experienced it or noticed it for yourself yet. For example, in one of my classes, I often have scientific discussions with a good friend of mine who considers himself an atheist and believes quite strongly in evolution. He's always respectful with his presented arguments, and I've never really heard him tell a Christian that they're religion is wrong- only that he doesn't believe in it. Yet, an extremely outspoken Christian girl in our class always seems to butt into our conversations with an ever-so-charming shriek of, "That's wrong!" followed by some biblical explanation. Quite annoying, really.

Originally Posted by Sugar

Atheists are so set on proving Christianity wrong because the majority of Christians are so set on proving it right, and therefore proving Atheism wrong. It's a vicious circle. I guess it's impossible for us to *not* argue the beliefs of others with our own, and simply believe what we wish to believe while others do the same.

Debate exposes doubt. *death cab reference*

And I think it's good to debate with others and discuss it. That way, you aren't just believing things blindly.

1: Because science has already explained almost everything.
2: If "god" was real than why do we have people like bin Laden or Bush living in our world.
3: There is no sign of a god. No proof.
There you have it.

Originally Posted by sethpenguin

1: Because science has already explained almost everything.
2: If "god" was real than why do we have people like bin Laden or Bush living in our world.
3: There is no sign of a god. No proof.
There you have it.

What makes you think God is obligated to not allow them to live in our world?

Originally Posted by sethpenguin

1: Because science has already explained almost everything.
2: If "god" was real than why do we have people like bin Laden or Bush living in our world.
3: There is no sign of a god. No proof.
There you have it.

1. No it hasn't. If everything's been explained, then why do we have scientists? What are they researching or studying? More importantly, what are they doing with their lives?
2. That's similar to asking why wouldn't you automatically believe if there really was a God. People have been given a choice regarding how they live or what they believe. That doesn't disprove it at all.
3. No proof. Just like in science. We don't always have solid proof, just pieces of evidence. Something we may be so sure is right might be proven wrong decades from now. Some choose to believe in science, some choose to believe in God, some choose to believe in both. And neither will disprove the other.

Originally Posted by sethpenguin

1: Because science has already explained almost everything.
2: If "god" was real than why do we have people like bin Laden or Bush living in our world.
3: There is no sign of a god. No proof.
There you have it.

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with the first two, because I'm pretty sure that even as an atheist I can explain both of those. 1. Science has not come even close to explain everything. Science has explained next to nothing in juxtaposition to the wealth of knowledge that exists in this universe.

2. The simple answer is free will. The less simple answer is that despite the fact that god does want humans to experience life in a generally good way, earth is ultimately a test and if he/she/it wants us to be well rounded individuals (or even know that we are happy) there must be bad to both test us, and to give us something to compare the good to. Though I do admit, if there's an omnibenevolent god it does seem like he/she/it has let things get a little too out of hand. Consequences of free will I suppose.

But yeah, I have no real answer for the third one. The answer you'll hear from most theists is that you can see the effects of god through the humans he/her/it/ created. But that's hardly clear, observable evidence for any such deity.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with the first two, because I'm pretty sure that even as an atheist I can explain both of those. 1. Science has not come even close to explain everything. Science has explained next to nothing in juxtaposition to the wealth of knowledge that exists in this universe.

2. The simple answer is free will. The less simple answer is that despite the fact that god does want humans to experience life in a generally good way, earth is ultimately a test and if he/she/it wants us to be well rounded individuals (or even know that we are happy) there must be bad to both test us, and to give us something to compare the good to. Though I do admit, if there's an omnibenevolent god it does seem like he/she/it has let things get a little too out of hand. Consequences of free will I suppose.

But yeah, I have no real answer for the third one. The answer you'll hear from most theists is that you can see the effects of god through the humans he/her/it/ created. But that's hardly clear, observable evidence for any such deity.

I agree with every one of those answers. The third one is a giveaway. If there's proof, then that eradicates the meaning of faith, even if it verifies the religion. Christianity is based on faith and that we have the choice to freely believe if we want to. There's no proof to make us, just what we choose to see and observe.

Sethpenguin, next time, try to build a real argument.

Originally Posted by mikej

Rather the other way around.

Missed this one on the last page. You get an F for quoting me out of context, Mr. Scholarly Citations.

Originally Posted by Kouten

I agree with every one of those answers. The third one is a giveaway. If there's proof, then that eradicates the meaning of faith, even if it verifies the religion. Christianity is based on faith and that we have the choice to freely believe if we want to. There's no proof to make us, just what we choose to see and observe.

Sethpenguin, next time, try to build a real argument.

That's not free will that's blind faith.

Plus, just because there's proof for it doesn't mean that your forced to believe in it. After all, there's still people that claim that evolution isn't real and that the sun revolves around the earth.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

That's not free will that's blind faith.

No. Not including personal experiences, there's still plenty of evidence that supports God's existance. Probably just as much as there is against it. I simply said that there wasn't any solid proof.

here is what being religious has caused
1:Jones town massacre
2:Iraq war
3:religious sacrifices and suicides.
4:extremist
and
5: a war between Muslims and Christians that some belive will occur in the future.

Originally Posted by Project 2501

You just proved my point.

Why shouldn't he be able to say that you believe wrongly if that's what he thinks? Christians are free to proselytize, but atheist beliefs (or the lack thereof) are considered "offensive." And maybe they are offensive; religions tend to reinforce a conceit that humanity is somehow special. But first of all, offensiveness has nothing to do with accuracy, and second, Christianity is offensive to some as well, as is every religion. Yet followers of whatever religion can still preach whatever they want, while atheists are routinely attacked, humiliated, and even physically assaulted by the religious majority, simply because atheism offends more people's delusional notions of cosmic significance. Clearly, democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I'm not the kind of Christian who goes around trying to convert people of other religions and atheists.
Also, @ bolded, elaborate please.

Originally Posted by sethpenguin

here is what being religious has caused
1:Jones town massacre
2:Iraq war
3:religious sacrifices and suicides.
4:extremist
and
5: a war between Muslims and Christians that some belive will occur in the future.

Why should we even turn an eye towards your shoddy attempts to bash religion? I doubt that your posts mean anything to anyone, religous or atheist. You honestly sound like someone who doesn't believe in God simply to argue against it, and you have no real support in any of your posts. That said, please go away until you can contribute to the discussion.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

That's not free will that's blind faith.

Plus, just because there's proof for it doesn't mean that your forced to believe in it. After all, there's still people that claim that evolution isn't real and that the sun revolves around the earth.

Believing that the sun revolves around the earth is blind faith. There's no way around it. There is evidence to exactly the contrary. But here's the thing. Believing in a god is not necessarily blind faith. Now the theists that go around touting about how god said this, god said that, certain people shouldn't be allowed to marry, and have no good reason to believe any of what they're saying are the blind believers. But being able to come to terms with the fact that you won't understand god, that your holy book may be imperfect, that there are other schools of thought that may be equally valid, those are the people excercising free will.

Kouten is right in saying proof eradicates faith, because it does. But that doesn't mean having no proof connotate blind faith. If there was exact evidence contradicting the existence of god, that would make it blind faith. But if someone can take evidences and theories generally considered atheistic (Big Bang, evolution, etc.) and reconcile them with their belief system, then they are excercising free will, not blind faith. The contrast between the two is subtle, but it makes all the difference.

Edit: To Sethpenguin: here's what atheism has given us:
1. Stalin (though to be entirely fair, it was atheism mixed with communism)
2. People who have nothing better to do than to constantly tear down religion, whether their points are valid or not.
3. Extremists (both atheists and theists; point 2 of mine has actually caused some religious moderates to become extremists)

Like I said before, I am an atheist. But I also recognize that atheism has its own track history of violence and perversion. To neglect that is to be one-sided and biased. And once you do that, you become the exact thing you claim all those religious nutjobs to be.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Believing that the sun revolves around the earth is blind faith. There's no way around it. There is evidence to exactly the contrary. But here's the thing. Believing in a god is not necessarily blind faith. Now the theists that go around touting about how god said this, god said that, certain people shouldn't be allowed to marry, and have no good reason to believe any of what they're saying are the blind believers. But being able to come to terms with the fact that you won't understand god, that your holy book may be imperfect, that there are other schools of thought that may be equally valid, those are the people excercising free will.

Kouten is right in saying proof eradicates faith, because it does. But that doesn't mean having no proof connotate blind faith. If there was exact evidence contradicting the existence of god, that would make it blind faith. But if someone can take evidences and theories generally considered atheistic (Big Bang, evolution, etc.) and reconcile them with their belief system, then they are excercising free will, not blind faith. The contrast between the two is subtle, but it makes all the difference.

Under that logic believing there's a brain inside your skull is blind faith. However, if you were to go up to someone and crack open their skull, you would likely find a brain.

Most of the things I was taught in school they actually showed us proof of, so we didn't often have to go by the "they teach us it so it must be true" system.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Kouten is right in saying proof eradicates faith, because it does. But that doesn't mean having no proof connotate blind faith. If there was exact evidence contradicting the existence of god, that would make it blind faith. But if someone can take evidences and theories generally considered atheistic (Big Bang, evolution, etc.) and reconcile them with their belief system, then they are excercising free will, not blind faith. The contrast between the two is subtle, but it makes all the difference.

Thank you. Even if you don't agree, it only matters that we're seeing where the other comes from, right? :XD

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Under that logic believing there's a brain inside your skull is blind faith. However, if you were to go up to someone and crack open their skull, you would likely find a brain.

Most of the things I was taught in school they actually showed us proof of, so we didn't often have to go by the "they teach us it so it must be true" system.

The point is that there are just as many things in science that aren't proven. Things that we have to use evidence and reasoning to state as "possible" or "likely." And those may not be true years from now.

Originally Posted by Asmodeus

Alright, so the sources I've listed are automatically wrong because... you feel one 'looks unprofessional', another has paragraphs you don't like the look of, and one's from wikipedia?

Admittedly, he didn't have a very good reason for not trusting the first two sites, I'd like to take the time to remind not just you but everyone that anything from Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that it can be edited by anyone is what has caused many institutions to prohibit its use as a valid source for anything.

Anyway, in direct response to the OP, I haven't exactly encountered any atheists (or, as I think Sage of Earth put it earlier, "antitheists," which I feel should be a valid term, so stfu Firefox) who have shown any sort of enmity towards Christianity or any other faith, and to be blunt, I find that any antitheist who actually behaves in such a way needs to be sucker punched in the nose. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a single person alive who is really authorized to criticize someone else's beliefs. If you find that a specific faith or belief contradicts yours, don't try to prove it wrong. Accept the fact that some people think otherwise and deal with it. This is how I learned to get over the fact that some people aren't Christians.