Clouseau

It is not because any leader of that movement is concerned that significant numbers of people believe that all 66 books are figurative. The intent of Young Earth Creationists is twofold; to give sceptics a vantage point in their battle with Christianity; and to corrupt orthodox faith, by various means.

driver8

As Clouseau said, christians generally believe in an afterlife that is tied to faith in Jesus, and for most it doesn't really get any more complicated than that. That's the whole damn thing in a nutshell, and their focus after that seems mostly to be some form of cultural or familial assimilation coupled with practicing ritual and adhering to whatever moral standard seems appropriate. Here in mormon land this characteristic is astonishingly present, though where I grew up in southern baptist land it was little different. The badge of christianity is the badge of communal acceptance. When mormons, e.g., lose their faith they often also lose their family, their community, and even career opportunity. This is maybe not so relevant to what they believe as to why they believe. What it does say about their beliefs is that there is little motivation to seriously question the faith they've been taught, so whether or not a snake spoke is hardly relevant to them keeping the faith.

You asked for absurdities within christian belief. To me, you need look no further than the central theme.

My list of christian absurdities would look something like this, chronologically speaking:

1) Belief in a creator
2) Belief that there was an archangel or satan who was cast out of the council of gods, or however you want to describe it
3) Belief that the creator then made the earth, the universe, man, etc.
4) Belief in sin, that satan then subverted man
5) Belief that man angered god so that he sent the flood (This one is something of a throwaway because it would not be necessary for christianity to stand. It’s just an unfortunate inheritance they are stuck with, and such an easy target.)
6) Belief that after so much time had passed that god changed his message to man such that a saviour was required (this is the MOST preposterous concept of all)
7) Belief that the presence and death of the supposed saviour son of god actually has any relevance
8) The supposed setting of these events, and the incredible lack of evidence or artifacts supporting the story of the saviour

In more detail:
1) The most common take on the existence of god seems to be summed up in the perspective that "life is just so wonderful and complex and, oooh, isn't that sunset so beautiful, there just must be a god." For 90% of people I think that pretty much sums up the whole deal. What they don't consider is that this solution to the problem actually is more difficult than the original problem. Life is indeed complex and seemingly improbable, but proposing a god as the source requires something achingly complex and powerful to have existed at some time = zero. I suspect that our understanding of time is inadequate to even let us comprehends that there never was a time = zero, in which case it becomes impossible to describe this god. Our understanding of physics also points out the enormous difficulty of such complexity existing of its own volition, and if it cannot exist of its own volition, then it cannot be a legitimate concept, because it is defined as the creator.

From a more practical perspective, ask the christian HOW god created, and whether or not god has physical form. They have no model for this because none is tenable, and the word of god (the bible) doesn't really say (surprise). They probably would admit that, since man is created in god's image, their god does have a physical presence, or at least can adopt one at will. How else would this god be able to actually do anything? Energy doesn't exist without matter; it is just a property of matter. So, for god to have created anything we could rightfully assume he did great work and expended great energy. What did he eat?

2) Now, right at the beginning of the bible we learn that adam and eve were deceived, that original sin is the downfall of man, and that this is ultimately attributed to some archangel satan. So, it follows that god had a helper in the creation process who rebelled. Now, this story is obviously nothing more than a theological ruse intended to give churches sway over the souls of their adherents, but it is critical for the story to hold up. Of what relevance is jesus without satan? More to the point, what does it say about the omnipotent creator if he has no dominion over his servants? It says he is not as powerful as advertised.

3) As stated in 1) above, how could a god create if one could not reasonably exist? Perhaps we could find confirmation that our world was not created as proclaimed in the bible, and in fact, every testable observation ever made fits well into a rational worldview that is counter to the creation story presented in the bible. This being the case, what trust could one put in anything presented as testament, philosophy, ideology, or theology within, at the very least, the old testament. And, by the association which christians themselves have made, the new testament. Why should anyone believe the claims of the prophets, or of any divine intervention?

4) Satan I addressed above. You may say that satan is not a critical element of the bible or christianity, but this is just a gloss. In some ways it is an embarrassment to christians, because it seems less believable than a god and certainly less desirable, so many are content with ignoring this aspect of their religion. But, christians are consumed with the concept of "sin" or "evil," which hardly stands without its source. And the central concept, the saviour, is really irrelevant without this anti-christ.

5) The flood business I'll skip as being unworthy of serious discussion.

6) This is much more relevant. The omnipotent creator decides that man needs salvation so that he might attain an afterlife and join god in heaven. Why the rules are changed at this point in the game christianity never clearly says, but this to me is its weakest argument, while christians of course proclaim the saviour as their best argument for priority. As I've rejected the concepts of creator, satan, and sin I find myself in the position of being unable to support the argument for saviour. Even if I were to accept the argument for creator, I would find the argument for a saviour untenable. It essentially requires that the creator be inept. It begs the question of what happened to all people pre-christianity, and it begs the question of god's ability to communicate.

7) So, the central tenet of christianity is this, that belief in the crucified saviour will provide everlasting life in heaven. Why? No freaking clue. Are we really to believe in this morality test, and if so, wouldn't we expect it to be more evenly applied? Wouldn't there be uniform standards? The gospels certainly don't provide uniform standards. We're told that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" among other nonsense. Why does god even care? If he cares why did he even allow satan and sin in the first place? What benefit is it to HIM that we have eternal life? So, who does this story benefit? Obviously, those desirous of eternal life.

As a side note, christians will proclaim that "god so loved the world he gave his only son." Isn't that proof enough? Well, actually that's no proof at all. First, there's no proof of a god, no proof that any god ever had a son, and there's no proof that he had an only son, and there's no proof he couldn't have as many freaking sons as he wanted to have. Perhaps what they're saying is that god's wife died during labor trying to give jesus a brother. Regardless, the argument is ridiculous on its face. Its only value is in assuring the faithful.

8) So, after considering how ridiculous the basic premise of this story is, we come to its basic credibility, the level of evidence supporting it, where most of the discussion on this board focuses. Supposedly, the saviour is delivered so that all mankind might achieve eternal life in the presence of god! It’s not a trivial issue, so you have a right to expect some fairly high standards in the transmission of the story. But, given the contextual background, it’s not surprising that the text shows that this saviour is as much a messiah to bring the people of israel political power as he is a true worldwide saviour. It’s not surprising that the message is so conflicted that interpretations of its meaning will never be agreed upon. We are given a character essentially impossible to place in any actual historical context, we're told countless stories of miracles that are not elsewhere recounted or are such that they could have no witness. We have no demonstrable eyewitness accounts of any of the events or of the man himself, and hardly know who the authors are or anyone who even claims to know who they are. We can only speculate as to when and where they were written or why they don’t even agree. At some point you have to just assume incompetence rather than try to illicit any reason. There are no artifacts, no shrines, nowhere to make a pilgrimage, not a trace of these events. All this is the supposed product of the creator of the universe and his gift to the world, his only son. In short, we’re asked to believe the least credible of stories about arguably the most important of issues based on the flimsiest of evidence. All the while, christians would have you believe this is the one true religion.

But, does any of this matter to the true believer? They want eternal life, they believe they have a superior morality, and they sure as hell didn’t come from a monkey. Gee, isn’t the sunset beautiful? Must have been god.

placebo

Let me reiterate. If someone, for whatever reason, wants to believe in the Biblical fairy tale that is their business. But, when they want to use that nonsense to impose their will on others, and for the formulation of public policy then it is the non-believer's duty to point out how ridiculous those beliefs are. It doesn't matter if the believer is a moron or a genius. It doesn't matter what the reasons regardless how impressive they sound (e.g., compartmentalize, cognitive dissonance). Nonsense is still nonsense.

I'm sure you're correct that ridiculing their beliefs will make them cling to them more strongly. Not all of them though, just some of them. There will be many that have never been challenged on this silliness and it will plant doubts. The believer wants to avoid confronting the absurdities of the Bible. If they can ignore them they don't have to think about them. The non-believer, by being polite and not speaking out, lets the believer off the hook. Civil rights, women's suffrage, gay rights, ... did not make progress by being polite.

Clouseau

But that has not happened here, afaik. It does not happen in most Western countries. And it has nothing to do with Biblical criticism anyway.

placebo

Efforts to teach Creationism/ID as Science
Blue Laws
Resistance to Gay Rights
Laws Against Prostitution
Support of Slavery Laws
... just to touch the surface

Clouseau

But that has not happened here, afaik. It does not happen in most Western countries. And it has nothing to do with Biblical criticism anyway.

placebo

<edit>

Toto

"Here" to Clouseau is the UK, with its established but slumbering C of E. Don't worry, Clouseau, the evangelicals are after your country too. They are setting up school to teach Creationism to their children. You won't even have time to repeal your laws against blasphemy before you have to deal with this, if the Muslim fundamentalists don't take over first.

placebo

<edit>
Last edited by Toto : Yesterday at 11:46 PM. Reason: strange and possibly insulting diversion snipped
=====
Any regrets for editing my "Good News and Bad News" post?

Jack the Bodiless

...Uh, most of those (or equivalents) apply, or have applied, to to the UK.

Efforts to teach Creationism/ID as Science: Emmanuel College etc.

Blue Laws: Sunday-trading laws.

Resistance to Gay Rights: Civil Partnerships only recently introduced, homosexuality once illegal (imprisonment of Oscar Wilde etc).

Laws Against Prostitution: Prostitution is indeed illegal (sort of: technically it isn't, but everthing related to it is, such as soliciting or keeping a brothel).

Support of Slavery Laws: not anymore, but the slave trade was big once. Offhand I'm not sure if the Bible was used to justify it in the UK (as it was in the US).

I could also add: constitutional difficulties for atheist MP's (particularly those who won't swear a religious oath to the Queen: also affects Republicans).

ETA: How could I forget compulsory Christianity in various private and state-funded schools?