I’ve asked many Christians many questions about God, the Bible, miracles, etc. I repeatedly get very evasive answers - or the Christians get angry. It’s obvious to me that ‘God’ is just a metaphor for something else, but Christians won’t admit it. But how does it help their own purpose to be evasive or get angry when confronted with questions about their faith?
The thing about not admitting something is that you are refusing to acknowledge something that you know to be the case (or not the case, in this case), so I don’t really think they are refusing to admit anything. They might be refusing to admit that they can’t answer all of your questions, and the reason for that is because your questions might scare them or intimidate them.
If you try to look at things from their POVs’, though, then you could understand why they may be scared. For many Christians, Christianity has been one of, if not the, focal point on which they base their entire sense of morality and much of their lives’, so it is natural to become defensive when one is questioning that which makes up your very essence. Imagine growing up with the same family for 30 years and then having questions presented to you that might make it appear as though you were adopted and didn’t know it, that would be a complete mindfuck.
I would say that one thing many people fail to take into consideration is that Christianity is generally much more important to the Christian than Atheism is to the Athiest because you don’t really have to invest quite as much into Atheism emotionally. On top of that, you must understand that there is sort of a, “Case closed,” feeling when it comes to a Christian and his/her belief in God, so when that belief is threatened it also threatens their inner contentment because they will then have to seek spirtual closure and find it a different way if they conclude that you are right.
I have a feeling that the Christians you speak to get angry because you assume to know, absolutely, that there is no god, then speak to them as if they were stupid for believing in a god they can’t prove (nevermind the fact that you can’t prove there ISN’T one). Your questionable motives also blind you to the fact that even if a person could prove beyond a doubt that there IS a god, they would never be able to answer all of your questions about him/her/it, and you shouldn’t, as a reasonable person, expect them to. It strikes me as quite obvious that a person wouldn’t be able to fully explain a being so complex as a god.
Regardless of what the Christian interprets the motives to be of the one who asks the question(s), in what way does it better serve their overall quest in life to either become angry or evasive when confronted with questions about their faith and about what they believe in?
It doesn’t serve any purpose at all. When we use our defense mechanisms, it’s because we are unsure of our beliefs, no matter what kind of beliefs they are. They are in danger of being disproven and so we have to hug them to us, fight for them. We might just have to take an honest look at them and question them. We don’t want to do this, heaven’s no!!
You might start by clarifying your position honestly.
Most people assume religious inquiry on matters are attacks, rather than curiosities.
Most people will assume you are out to prove them an idiot.
shrug
If that is your interest, then that’s pretty lame.
If, on the other hand, you are sincere in inquiry, then it might help to buffer the conversation with noting that you aren’t intending to challenge or threaten their personal belief, or belittle them in any regard, but that you simply desire answers to questions you cannot resolve or accept Christianity because of.
This isn’t isolated to Christians.
I can cause the same effect by walking up to a socialist, republican, liberal, etc… and drilling questions without a disclaimer just as easily.
Also, as I said in the other thread; this isn’t metaphor; this is allegory.
Agrees with Stumps.
Of course it doesn’t serve their “overall quest” in life to get angry, but Christians are still humans, with all the flaws and faults that everyone else has, whether you would believe it or no. It’s a natural reaction to get angry when someone is attacking what you believe and attempting to make you out to be a fool. Most of the questions you’ve been asking about the Christian faith on the board bring to mind the questions of a small child who, not understanding the nature of faith, will of course wonder why god doesn’t just show himself. Coming from an (I assume) fully grown adult, this would come across as rude and obnoxious, and create feelings of anger and irritation. Perhaps it’s just the way you word your questions that makes it seem so, but all the same…
I have to (somewhat) disagree. Becoming defensive is a sign that one is unsure of their beliefs, but it is also a natural reaction to an attack. Having read several of Mutcer’s posts, I would wager that this is a large part of the problem. Of course you could say I’m assuming a lot for someone who isn’t present when these questions are being asked, but when considering said posts I’d say it’s a pretty logical assumption.
The self vs the other. Most atheists (not all are rational) argue about the other, the objective, what our senses tell us. Religious believers argue about the self, the subjective, what their brains imagine and decipher. Christians are only evasive if we assume they arrive at christianity through objective, scientific deliberation and logic. Put yourself in their shoes and you’ll realize that everything about their faith is logically illogical and points to god as the original cause of everything. So don’t bother arguing with christians. I’ve given up long ago.
I don’t know why anyone argues on either side of this table honestly, 
Why does it serve the Christian better for him/her to assume that questions about their faith are attacks rather than curiosities. Why does it serve them better to assume an inquiry is meant to prove they are idiots?
It sounds like you’re saying that without one making it clear that they aren’t intending to challenge or threaten the personal belief of the Christian, the Christian will typically assume that the one asking the questions is merely attacking their belief system. In what way does it serve their overall quest in life better for them to assume it’s an attack on their belief system rather than honest curiosity?
As I said, this isn’t only a Christian reaction.
This is how most people react when a discussion arises about something they hold personal and do not wish to see devalued or in error.
So whether it’s move clever or not is irrelevant.
If you want discourse, this is how people work.
Why are christians being pursued?
If they’re so confident about it, then why would they feel so vulnerable when their belief is questioned?
I said nothing about confidence in any regard.
Again, why not seek that which is in more accord to your nature rather than this, which seems lacking any real use for you?
They appear very confident in their belief. Yet their actions don’t support their apparent belief - or they would pray for things like dead people to be brought back to life and amputees to have limbs regrown.
I have no use for the belief system of Christianity - as it has been presented to me. What puzzles me is how so many intelligent & rational minded people could fall for something that is so full of logical fallacies.
Ahhhh…
You are looking at this the wrong way then.
People largely follow a given Religious doctrine because it rings sound in thought to what they feel in sense.
They have a sensory input which intuitively compels them to feel one way or another about reality.
They then poke around until eventually they find something that doesn’t cause discord with that sense.
This has nothing to do with logic.
It has to do with intuition and sense.
They are confident because they feel that it is right for what they sense; nothing in it causes a negative sensation that is counter to how they sense reality.
The allegorical names and placements of constructs are describing that which they lacked literal description for, but sensed their idea of reality to be akin to.
To most who believe; a metaphysical beyond that they feel is felt as inherently safe.
This is easily translated into the Allegorical figure of an all good God, as found in Christianity.
You find them confident because they are confident as one is that one is tangibly holding love, or happiness, or despair yet if you directly question and drill into these things, people will not be able to logically support them.
They will likely rather just become frustrated and seem contradicting themselves in their apparent confidence by their sudden frustration with the inquisition.
Do they not bother to look at whether it is logically sound? Or are they aware of the logical fallacies but choose to “put them aside”?
If they are confident, then they should be able to handle any inquisition without frustration or anger.
Mostly what you would probably class as, “put aside”.
It’s not dismissed, but suspended until they (as it is commonly perceived) are able to gain higher understanding through worship, prayer, and meditation.
It’s…well…kind of like Buddhism in only this respect isolated.
The practice is absolutely different, but the concept is that the “truth” of the issue will reveal itself upon devotion over time.
So most devoted followers just trust that one day the understanding will be there, and trust that there is reason existing in the conditions of it.
Only, we all are perfectly aware that people are not this simple.
It would be easy if all had the peace and calm of the Dalai Lama or the Pope, but most people are just people.
What many would call, “flawed”, and not at rest with much of anything.
It’s hardly a fault for people to be frustrated when they themselves haven’t a means of remedying the discrepancy and lack the ability to articulate how they feel it to be true and right regardless.
I had this happen the other night with my Wife.
She had asked my opinion of a person she was making acquaintance with from her past.
I said it was bad, but if she wanted to continue on, then that was her choice.
She wanted a stated reason and logic for why I thought this person was bad.
I had none.
I only had my “gut”, which I always trust regarding people.
And at first I wasn’t making that clear, so when she pressed for reason in debating form, I became more and more irritable as the thought of the person continued to press “bad” in my “gut” every time we discussed them further.
Eventually I realized I had not made this clear, and did so and the issue was done and over.
However, most people don’t realize such a thing is occurring with their religious perspectives and instead simply become irritated and frustrated.
It’s unfair to ask the Farmer about the complex workings of Final Cut Pro…
Likewise, it’s unfair to ask the big city socialite female how to tan a deer hyde.
Some Christians are called to play the piano…some are called to build houses…
And some, Mr. Mutcer, are called to answer questions.
Don’t be a coward like Bill Maher, who saught out those who were unprepared for his (frankly, tired) arguments, just to make himself look smarter and the Christian position, dumber.
I invite anyone into the Christian worldview to internally critique it. Critique to your heart’s content.
Just remember, turn about is fair play, and in this case…necessary.