God exists because atheists are bad people.

[Jagella]

While I realize that Christian apologists deal with a lot of issues, I think it's fair to say that the issue of the existence of the Bible god is the main issue of apologetics. If there is no Bible god, then apologetics is very trivialized and looks foolish. So what seems odd to me is the great amount of time apologists spend attacking atheists and anybody else who is openly critical and skeptical about Christian claims. Atheists and skeptics have been denounced by apologists as imbeciles, fools, rogues, ignoramuses, and evil doers. Atheists are blamed for the genocides of Stalin and Hitler.

They are very BAD people!

Although these accusations are debatable, what I'd like to discuss is the relevance of the alleged wrong doing of atheists to the existence of the Bible god. It seems reasonable to me to conclude that no matter how evil atheists might be, the existence of the Bible god is not one bit more likely.

Question for Debate: Why do apologists put so much time and energy into attacking atheists?

[bluethread]

Though I do not do that, a reason why it is done by those who do is the same reason that some atheists call theists imbeciles, fools, rogues, ignoramuses, and evil doers. Atheists have even blamed theists for Hitler. It is team sport. It is common human behavior to seek to undermine a philosophy by pointing the actions of some who profess it, even if those actions do not follow from that philosophy. I prefer to look at the nature of a philosophy and follow it to it's logical conclusion.

[Jagella]

Though I do not do that, a reason why it is done by those who do is the same reason that some atheists call theists imbeciles, fools, rogues, ignoramuses, and evil doers.

It depends on the individuals. Those who deny or ignore clear evidence that their beliefs are false are imbeciles, those who drink poison or handle poisonous snakes are fools, those who lie or cheat to mislead others that their beliefs are true are rogues, those who refuse to educate themselves in relevant history and science are ignoramuses, and those who persecute others who don't believe what they do are evil doers.

Atheists have even blamed theists for Hitler.

I don't really blame theists for Nazism, but I believe much of it got started when the New Testament was written. On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Hitler was reputedly inspired by the atheistic philosopher Nietzsche. There were many influences on Hitler.

It is common human behavior to seek to undermine a philosophy by pointing the actions of some who profess it, even if those actions do not follow from that philosophy.

I think it obviously follows that if a philosophy results in violence, then something is terribly wrong with that philosophy. So I do not deny that atheism results in violence and other evils. It is possible that some people must believe in gods to keep them civil. In fact, it appears that those apologists who claim atheism results in genocide are tacitly admitting that they would become killers without their Christianity.

I prefer to look at the nature of a philosophy and follow it to it's logical conclusion.

I think it's more a question of what effect a philosophy or religion has on a person psychologically and socially. If a religion induces paranoia using fear and guilt, then violence may well result.

But getting back to the OP, the existence of TIMITS is generally unrelated to the acts of atheists. TIMITS may not exist no matter how bad atheists are.

[Clownboat]

While I realize that Christian apologists deal with a lot of issues, I think it's fair to say that the issue of the existence of the Bible god is the main issue of apologetics. If there is no Bible god, then apologetics is very trivialized and looks foolish. So what seems odd to me is the great amount of time apologists spend attacking atheists and anybody else who is openly critical and skeptical about Christian claims. Atheists and skeptics have been denounced by apologists as imbeciles, fools, rogues, ignoramuses, and evil doers. Atheists are blamed for the genocides of Stalin and Hitler.

They are very BAD people!

Although these accusations are debatable, what I'd like to discuss is the relevance of the alleged wrong doing of atheists to the existence of the Bible god. It seems reasonable to me to conclude that no matter how evil atheists might be, the existence of the Bible god is not one bit more likely.

Question for Debate: Why do apologists put so much time and energy into attacking atheists?

This is common cult behavior.
Nothing helps to unite a cult like having a common enemy to unite against.

Whether a person considers a religion to be a cult or not does not change this behavior.

[Wootah]

While I realize that Christian apologists deal with a lot of issues, I think it's fair to say that the issue of the existence of the Bible god is the main issue of apologetics. If there is no Bible god, then apologetics is very trivialized and looks foolish. So what seems odd to me is the great amount of time apologists spend attacking atheists and anybody else who is openly critical and skeptical about Christian claims. Atheists and skeptics have been denounced by apologists as imbeciles, fools, rogues, ignoramuses, and evil doers. Atheists are blamed for the genocides of Stalin and Hitler.

They are very BAD people!

Although these accusations are debatable, what I'd like to discuss is the relevance of the alleged wrong doing of atheists to the existence of the Bible god. It seems reasonable to me to conclude that no matter how evil atheists might be, the existence of the Bible god is not one bit more likely.

Question for Debate: Why do apologists put so much time and energy into attacking atheists?

Evidence?

[Jagella]

Evidence?

Evidence for what? If you want evidence for these attacks on atheists, then try reading Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There Is No God by Anthony DeStefano. It's vicious. I was inspired to start this thread by this book.



And can you answer the question for debate?

[Divine Insight]

I'm not the slightest bit concerned with any war between Theists and Atheists. The Theists have been at war against each other for centuries. Even when it comes down to one specific faction of the Abrahamic Religions, say Christianity. Even Christian theists renounce each other's beliefs, interpretations, and theological apologies.

If all that existed on planet Earth were "Christians", they'd be hating on each other in the name of their single multi-personality God "Jesus/Yahweh".

This religion is based on the condemnation of others. Especially on the condemnation of non-believers. We already know that there is no love lost between the Catholics and Protestants. And Protestantism is the biggest joke of all. Protestants renounce each others interpretations and beliefs all the time.

So yeah, if all that existed on planet Earth were "Christians" we'd probably see more violent and hateful holy wars than we currently have. At least, as it is now, the Christians need to pretend that they are all on the same "side". But that's only so they can inflate their numbers to include all the Christians they disagree with.

If Christianity was the only religion on Earth mankind probably would have already blown itself off the face of the planet by now. In Jesus' name no doubt.

[Jagella]

I'm not the slightest bit concerned with any war between Theists and Atheists.

Understood, but as I say in the OP I'd like to discuss this strange logic on the part of the apologists in which they respond to their critics and those who don't believe them by attacking the skeptics. If they want to convince the skeptics that TIMITS exists, then it's not good logic to criticize the critics.

So the issue here isn't any "war" between theists and atheists but poor logic on the part of Christian apologists.

Personally, I think the apologists often get frustrated with their weak arguments, and in desperation they go on the offensive.

[Divine Insight]

I'm not the slightest bit concerned with any war between Theists and Atheists.

Understood, but as I say in the OP I'd like to discuss this strange logic on the part of the apologists in which they respond to their critics and those who don't believe them by attacking the skeptics. If they want to convince the skeptics that TIMITS exists, then it's not good logic to criticize the critics.

So the issue here isn't any "war" between theists and atheists but poor logic on the part of Christian apologists.

Personally, I think the apologists often get frustrated with their weak arguments, and in desperation they go on the offensive.

Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree. Apologists are clearly desperate to try to find arguments for the potential existence of their God from any source they can muster.

And, you're perfectly correct. The only reason they need to do this is becasue they don't have any compelling apologies to begin with.

And so yes, here are many apologetic tactics.

1. Attempt to attack the credibility of any skeptics.

2. Attack science as being entirely "faith-based" in an effort to bring science down to the same level of non-credibility as their own theology.

3. Make purely logical arguments for the existence of a generic "God" by appealing to things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the Modal Ontological Arguments.

4. Pretend that the Bible is verified credible history in every claim it makes no matter how absurd or ridiculous the claims might be.

All of the above are only needed by a theology that clearly has no credibility of its own. If they had any compelling arguments for their theology they wouldn't need to resort to the above tactics.

In fact, the only argument Biblical theists actually have is the following.

a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
a. The Bible is the word of God and therefore must be perfect and true.
b. I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.

This is really all they have.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Jagella]

I haven't experienced your issue. I often think our self perception is skewed. How did the book attack you?