Christians' feelings hurt

[Wordleymaster1]

I'm relatively new here but even so, I've noticed many people seem to get their feelings hurt SUPER easily. Most of these people have been self ID'd as Christian.
I've noticed while I was a Christian as well as now that Christians tend to be able to get away with saying a lot of smack about other groups but when someone says smack about them, they scream and cry louder than a woman in childbirth!
It seems that, as Christians, many get upset over things WAY more easily and faster than before they were a Christian.
Do you see this to be true?
Can you give examples either way?
Does becoming a Christian, which is a very emotional affair, create a super-sensitive person, or is it that tyically only super-sensitive people BECOME Christian?

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 17 by dianaiad]

Would you care, before you explore the question of why "Christians get their feelings hurt more," you prove to us that, hey, they actually DO?

No because that's NOT what I said. For your clarification I said "It seems that, as Christians, many get upset over things WAY more easily and faster than before they were a Christian." I'm sure you will notice the difference in what I said and what you CLAIM I said. I will NOT discuss something I never said. You need to be more careful in here.

I'd like some honest to goodness data on that.

Pa-leeze no where - NO WHERE - did I say this. What you're doing here is a set up from your own assumptions. I'm not playing that game. Comment on what was SAID, not what you ASSUME

So perhaps you could explain to me why non-theists, especially non-Christians, get so upset, and react so aggressively, at perceived insults?

Perhaps you could answer the question addressed and not try to change the subject - again?

You are, as you have just repeated, begging the question. Before you start exploring why Christians 'get upset over things WAY more easily and faster...' you need to actually show us that they do.

That's what "begging the question' IS.

So you CAN'T answer the question addressed? That's all that needs to be said. Thanks

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 17 by dianaiad]

Would you care, before you explore the question of why "Christians get their feelings hurt more," you prove to us that, hey, they actually DO?

No because that's NOT what I said. For your clarification I said "It seems that, as Christians, many get upset over things WAY more easily and faster than before they were a Christian." I'm sure you will notice the difference in what I said and what you CLAIM I said. I will NOT discuss something I never said. You need to be more careful in here.

I'd like some honest to goodness data on that.

Pa-leeze no where - NO WHERE - did I say this. What you're doing here is a set up from your own assumptions. I'm not playing that game. Comment on what was SAID, not what you ASSUME

So perhaps you could explain to me why non-theists, especially non-Christians, get so upset, and react so aggressively, at perceived insults?

Perhaps you could answer the question addressed and not try to change the subject - again?

You are, as you have just repeated, begging the question. Before you start exploring why Christians 'get upset over things WAY more easily and faster...' you need to actually show us that they do.

That's what "begging the question' IS.

So you CAN'T answer the question addressed? That's all that needs to be said. Thanks

Indeed. One cannot answer a question that depends upon a conclusion not established. First, establish that it is a question that may be logically asked.

Example: how can one answer the question 'why are all apples red?" when it has not been established that all apples are, indeed, red.

In fact, they are not.

'scuse me while I go munch on my Granny Smith.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

How, exactly, do YOU know what I can "hope" for or if "hope" is significant to me? Are you a mind reader? Omniscient?

Correction: I LIVE a full and interesting life without any need to "hope" for more "after you die" – and regard that conjecture as irrational.

Often when we assume someone is a mind reader or omniscient. This reflects our innate religious nature. I choose to follow Christ because I believe I am aware of our condition.

But in this case I assure you it is just logical deduction.

If one believes death is all there is then death is all they can hope for.

It's just impersonal logic.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

How, exactly, do YOU know what I can "hope" for or if "hope" is significant to me? Are you a mind reader? Omniscient?

Correction: I LIVE a full and interesting life without any need to "hope" for more "after you die" – and regard that conjecture as irrational.

Often when we assume someone is a mind reader or omniscient. This reflects our innate religious nature. I choose to follow Christ because I believe I am aware of our condition.

But in this case I assure you it is just logical deduction.

If one believes death is all there is then death is all they can hope for.

It's just impersonal logic.

Who but a theist's man of straw would believe that "death is all there is"?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

How, exactly, do YOU know what I can "hope" for or if "hope" is significant to me? Are you a mind reader? Omniscient?

Correction: I LIVE a full and interesting life without any need to "hope" for more "after you die" – and regard that conjecture as irrational.

Often when we assume someone is a mind reader or omniscient. This reflects our innate religious nature. I choose to follow Christ because I believe I am aware of our condition.

But in this case I assure you it is just logical deduction.

If one believes death is all there is then death is all they can hope for.

It's just impersonal logic.

Who but a theist's man of straw would believe that "death is all there is"?

What else is there, for someone who does not believe in an afterlife?

Now, I am NOT talking about the satisfaction one gets simply from having lived a good life. After all, theists do that too. I'm not talking about the hope one has that one might be remembered for one's deeds, or by one's family and friends. Theists have that too.

Aside from those things, which theists also have, what else is there at the end of life besides death, for non-believers?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

How, exactly, do YOU know what I can "hope" for or if "hope" is significant to me? Are you a mind reader? Omniscient?

Correction: I LIVE a full and interesting life without any need to "hope" for more "after you die" – and regard that conjecture as irrational.

Often when we assume someone is a mind reader or omniscient. This reflects our innate religious nature. I choose to follow Christ because I believe I am aware of our condition.

But in this case I assure you it is just logical deduction.

If one believes death is all there is then death is all they can hope for.

It's just impersonal logic.

Who but a theist's man of straw would believe that "death is all there is"?

What else is there, for someone who does not believe in an afterlife?

There's the next year, the next day, the next second. There's now.

Now, I am NOT talking about the satisfaction one gets simply from having lived a good life. After all, theists do that too. I'm not talking about the hope one has that one might be remembered for one's deeds, or by one's family and friends. Theists have that too.

Aside from those things, which theists also have, what else is there at the end of life besides death, for non-believers?

Why must we only look at the world from the perspective of the end of life? I mean, if the end is all mortal life is about to you, then of course mortal life is "nothing but death". It's basically a tautology.

What you and Wootah are offering about mortal life isn't logic. It's nothing more than a pessimistic subjective viewpoint.

And as Zzyzx said earlier, you don't get to dictate what we find significant.

[Zzyzx]

.

Aside from those things, which theists also have, what else is there at the end of life besides death, for non-believers?

Theists do not have anything more than Non-Theists except theistic beliefs that cannot be shown to be any more than imagination. If one hopes that Santa will bring them a new car are they somehow better off than someone who realizes that it is irrational to expect Santa to do so?

I see no great value in "hope" that is not grounded in reality. One can "hope" they win the lottery, or get a good job, or find a great mate (or go to heaven). Perhaps it would be prudent instead to acquire marketable and social skills (rather than some hollow "hope").

[dianaiad]

.

Aside from those things, which theists also have, what else is there at the end of life besides death, for non-believers?

Theists do not have anything more than Non-Theists except theistic beliefs that cannot be shown to be any more than imagination. If one hopes that Santa will bring them a new car are they somehow better off than someone who realizes that it is irrational to expect Santa to do so?

I see no great value in "hope" that is not grounded in reality. One can "hope" they win the lottery, or get a good job, or find a great mate (or go to heaven). Perhaps it would be prudent instead to acquire marketable and social skills (rather than some hollow "hope").

Given that most religions combine hope with preparation...exactly the sort of 'preparation' and 'good living' that those without hope do, what's the harm?

If you have two people...both of whom are nice to their neighbors, kind to their pets, good at their jobs and loving to their children, how does one of them also having a hope of heaven mess his life up?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 28 by dianaiad]

If belief in an afterlife affects their decisions, it seems pretty clear that there's potential danger.

How does the concept of an afterlife relate to theism though? Atheists can easily believe in afterlives, or even the same kind of 'judgement'.
Is it just that one supernatural/unverifiable belief paves the way or makes it easier for another?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 28 by dianaiad]

If belief in an afterlife affects their decisions, it seems pretty clear that there's potential danger.

How does the concept of an afterlife relate to theism though? Atheists can easily believe in afterlives, or even the same kind of 'judgement'.
Is it just that one supernatural/unverifiable belief paves the way or makes it easier for another?

According to American Atheists, The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.

While there is at least one religion, Buddhism, that might qualify as lacking a belief in gods, as such, they certainly believe in 'supernatural beings.'

Now I'm not saying that it is utterly impossible for an atheist (someone who lacks belief in a god or gods or supernatural beings) to believe in some sort of afterlife, it would seem, at least to me, to be an oxymoronic position. Wouldn't the folks IN such an afterlife qualify as the very supernatural beings atheists are supposed to lack belief in?

Or is this a giant moving of the goal posts, in which 'supernatural beings' means 'anything we don't believe in; if we believe in it, it ain't supernatural?"

You think that decisions made because of a 'hope of heaven' can be dangerous. Personally, I think decisions made by those who have no hope of an afterlife can be dangerous, too.

Most of the decisions made by ordinary people who want to go to heaven end up involving being better people, usually, since most of those decisions based upon that hope involve paying better attention to the moral and ethical base of the religion they believe in. You know...being honest, and living the golden rule, and that sort of thing.

There are, indeed, minorities who do spectacularly nasty things as a result of their hope of heaven.

But then there are minority atheists who do spectacularly nasty things simply because they can.

In fact, I don't see where atheists have any moral high ground upon which to criticize theists, in terms of behavior.

The opposite is true, too, of course.