(continued...)
So, what theists would you like me to tell you about, from my lifetime? No, really, the family Lutherans? The school Jesuits? Quakers? That one church in town when Kym died? A televangelist? A serial killer? And this is all before the quarter-century of the Gay Fray, which reminds of censors in the heavy metal wars. How about Dominionists? Christian hedonists? I suppose there's Islam. How many witches, New Agers, and, oh, right, Satanists, along the way? The former SDA turned post-Buddhist aspiring cult leader?
We could potentially discuss any or all of those. Apparently, none of our resident theists have much interest in drilling down into the specifics of particular denominations. If you are, why don't you start a thread about it?
When you ask about God, the question remains, which God. All you've done is turned it back 'round on theists. And it only took two and a half years.
I'm not sure where you got your two and a half year timeline from there, but yes: essentially I'm asking theists in this thread "which God"? Is that a problem?
But what are you criticizing?
In this thread? Nothing, except where the proffered definition doesn't make much sense. See the polite "thankyou"s I have posted to those theists who have actually attempted to respond to the simple question I asked.
You don't seem to know. At least, not until someone you don't trust tells you what to criticize. And from there it's merely a retort derived from your disbelief.
So you're speaking more generally? This is a continuation of your "atheists don't know much about religion" line from the closed thread, is it? Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion. I disagree with you. Firstly, many atheists used to be religious themselves, so they tend to have first-hand experience of at least one religion. I'm one of those myself. Secondly, many atheists - myself included - arrived at atheism after a process of finding out about religions - particularly by finding out something about religions other than the one they were brought up to believe in. That tends to lead to a person becoming interested in what kinds of beliefs and practices are common among different religions and to want to understand both
why certain kinds of beliefs are common and
how people come to those beliefs in the first place. The end result, in my experience, is that many atheists (not all) tend to end up with a more complete understanding both of their own former religion and of religion in general, compared to the average follower of a religion.
The arguments that atheists (not all atheists, mind you) make against gods and religions go beyond mere contrarianism ("I don't believe what you believe, so nyah!"). Perhaps you haven't noticed.
The question of what you are expecting who to say, and what you are looking for in that information, remains. I've told you before that your behavior only entrenches many religious more deeply in their beliefs; it's a curious mix of dependency and disregard.
Again, this is your opinion. I find it bizarre that you seem so fixated on
my "behaviour", when others on this forum spend their time knowingly telling lies for their religion, preaching that their religion is the One Truth because they say so, and making claims to supernatural knowledge that they know they have no hope of ever being able to support. Do you really think that those people are not already hopelessly entrenched in their beliefs? If they are willing to throw their
own proclaimed morals out the window to defend the religion from which they say they derive those morals, what does that say about them?
We might ask, What about which theists? but something about the question seems futile such discussions as one in which another participant ostensibly can't discern the differences. What about the theists? Which theists? You don't know? Oh, they don't deserve that respect? I see.
Which God? Whichever one is put in front of the critic.
The thing is: there
are commonalities to religious beliefs, regardless of which God. From an atheist perspective, it is not really necessary to disprove the Lutheran God, then the Baptist God, then the New Age Prosperity Jesus, then Jehovah of the Witnesses, then the Anglican God, then the Presbyterian God, and so on. The relevant arguments tend to apply to all versions of Christianity, and beyond.
Besides, these days a lot of theists don't even identify with a traditional denomination. They make up their own brand of Christianity (or whatever) as they go along, cherry picking the parts they like from one strand or another.
What I actually said was, picking fights with people you think you can take in a fight only reinforces, in their outlooks, that you're out to get them for the cheap satisfaction, which in turn only reinforces their own sense of their rightness. Maybe it's not a straw man: Do you actually think clumsy fallacy is the only way atheists know how to argue, or would you prefer to reconsider your failed sleight?
Now you're arguing that I'm too smart to be arguing with some of our strident theists here? I ought to be above interacting with them? Sounds a bit elitist and patronising, if you ask me.
It's one thing to find, "religious people aren't very good at explaining what their God is, except in very vague terms", but your priorities seem to overlook that they're not supposed to be. Religious people aren't very good at explaining ineffable notions, except in vague terms? Duh. You're asking people you already think are wrong? Well, of course you are.
It's great that you're stepping up to defend them, Tiassa, but don't you think that religious people can answer for themselves? If their God is incapable of definition, they can say so. One then wonders what they mean when they talk about God, though.
----
By the way, as I often do, I feel obliged to state clearly that #notalltheists. This should be obvious from everything else I've written on the topic, but I find that some people go out of their way to set up certain straw men.
