Christians have chosen to believe some guy that stated he was the Son of God and he could get you into heaven if you just believe him.


I realize this is stating the obvious. But every once in a while, I think it is necessary to put it out there to keep things in perspective. I could go on and on about how absurd that notion is. Today we would call people like that insane.

Considering that the majority of the country believe this "some guy," who is this "we" that would call the others insane?

And I suppose you would classify Jews who believe Moses actually talked to God in a flaming bush as insane? And Muslims that believe God spoke to Mohammad?

Layman:

Its all the same conditioned mindset.

So all Christians, Jews, and Muslims are insane?

I must say, in this age of political correctness, it is somewhat refreshing to see two people throw off all vestiges of tolerance.

Fair enough Foxhole Atheist but to be "for" or "against" him is to first have accepted the mindset. To be "for" him might leave us stranded only with hope based on faith while to be agianst him would leave us stranded only with absurdity based on doubt. Hence your reaction towards faith.

Amos

Layman:

I wouldn't go so far as to call them all insane. They just want to live forever.

I do believe that presently, as it is no longer as forbidden as it once was, a secular view is becoming more and more acceptable. The religious conditioning no longer has as strong a hold as it used to have on young minds in that those that have doubts, can now find some comfort in others of similar viewpoint.

I look to Europe now as to its religiosity and see a similar North America within 2 decades. This gives me a more optimistic outlook on the future of humankind.

I'm gonna go with Layman on this one. I was a die-hard believer (Christian) for 15 years and I certainly don't believe I was insane. Now that I am an atheist I still don't believe I was insane, just mistaken.

If you want to call such beliefs unwarranted due to the lack of evidence, fine, but insanity has a clinical definition and you'll be hard pressed to show that it qualifies I think.

Yes laymen,
Seriously look at the claims made, consider the degree of skepticism you would have at some event similar to that being claimed by some man today who supports it by saying you just have to believe me, have faith. Would you believe him? What makes his claim any different than Abraham's, Moses', Jesus' or anyones'? So even if the Gospels are somewhat of an accurate account of a man called Jesus, it still comes down to Jesus word that he is god.

As to your conclusion about the mental status of the religious, no, I would not call them insane, no more than a child that believes santa clause is insane. I never said that religious were insane, I implied that a person claiming that he is god today would likely be thought to be somewhat insane by most people.

[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited April 16, 2001).]

Amos:

I think that when you consider the "mindset" there is a lot more at stake here than simple hope based on faith.

I'm having some disagreements with fellow atheists today.

I think one can be optimistic about the future of humankind regardless of religion or lack thereof. Dogmatic or totalitarian ideas, whether theistic OR atheisic, are what can get us into trouble. I see no reason to believe atheism has a better chance of securing the future. No worse, but no better either.

(It all comes down to what people do with their philosophical beliefs rather than just the fact that they hold them.)