danielius

I've read quite a few comments here to the effect that Christianity is anti-reason or anti-science, that it is bigoted, fanciful, inconsistent etc.

I actually think that atheists are one of the best arguments for God's existence. I cannot myself recall any time when whole forums were dedicated to the purported existence or otherwise of Santa Claus, nor have I yet to encounter any brilliant debate on the fallacy of Mrs Tooth Fairy. No freethinker ever attempts to blow the three little pigs' temples down, though the first is made only of straw.

To argue that the Bible is too violent is at the same time to argue that it is too realistic. To state that it is an incongruous fairytale, is to state that we are all incongruous fairies.

There is nothing quite so old in every conceivable sense of the word as that which we call atheism. The modern tries to be ten minutes ahead of the present, and ends up nineteen centuries behind. An atheist teenager is not merely older at heart than their grandfather, they are older than India.

If you ask me why I choose Christianity, I find it as hard to answer as were you to ask me why I choose civilisation. For it is not that there are too few good reasons to give, as that there are altogether far too many. On the point of civilisation, I could but point to the postbox as to the policeman. And it is for this same sense that I choose Christianity, that I choose to eat on a table and not off the floor, or wear my right shoe on my right foot and not on my left hand.

Best wishes,

Daniel

Primordial Groove

Morning Daniel. Well, morning here anyway. It's 6am, the coffee is hot and I'm perculating. welcome to II, btw.

Among other things, yes.



If atheists are the best argument for your gods existence, then that doesnt say much about your worldview does it?

Santa, Mrs Tooth and Mother Goose do not claim to be the defacto creator of the universe either. We certainly don't see Little Bo Peeps' sheep flocking to subvert the human mind with superstitious mumbo jumbo, either. *bahhh*

Realistically, the bible is a violent piece of...sh...fiction. The argument is a direct refutation of the all-loving god claim. But you know this already.

So, the bible created us?

Atheism is older than religion. Doesn't that tell you something? As for the rest of this paragraph.....huh?

And your many reasons are?

Civilization is in my postbox or the policeman? Is the policeman guarding said postbox from mailing itself or Mrs Fairy?

I remember as a kid I loved eating on the floor, in front of the television watching saturday morning cartoons. grandma had other plans for my eating habits though and slowly but surely I stopped eating on the floor. Not because I was born to eat at the table, I was just programmed to.

This is considered a choice? Wearing a shoe on any hand would not only be silly, but irrational...just like your religion.

Refill please.

keyser_soze

Spaz

I think Primordial Groove pretty much summed it up (because he was the first ). Fairy Tales don't try to convert or murder people, violence can make something realistic, but not true (and it kills the omnibenevolent god). And for the rest: What the hell are you talking about?

danielius

Even before any discussion on disbelief is possible, it is necessary to state what one definitely does believe, for it is only by what we believe that we can ascertain what we do not. So this is the first thing, and on the subject of the Bible I must ask again for that harrowing ordeal we know as 'decision'. Are you decided against the Bible on the basis that it is too violent, too morbid, too tempestuous (that is to say, too realistic); or because it is too fantastic, too deluded, too untrue (that is to say, too unrealistic)? In other words, does it engage you too much, or too little? Is it water like Noah's flood, or water like off a duck's back?

The second thing is that there is no thing as 'freethought', as indeed there is no thing as 'free love'. Thought, as love, implies commitment, to a dogma as to a dog. To think is not to grow out, but to trim back. It is man's attempt to define his knowledge, by limiting it, as he limits his marriage or his garden. Let us all put our dogmas on the table.

My first reason for Christianity, and in its broadness my last too, is that it is vast enough to contain the cosmos, and with it me. Most of today's private philosophies are as narrow as their philosopher. There are no atheist churches, not because there are not enough worshippers, but because there are not enough seats.

There is as much difference between religion and fanaticism, as between science and scientology. So let us all try to limit our minds, to think, on the question of Christianity as a religion, as a world-view. To me, Christianity fits, it makes sense. It is reasonable, it is sane.

These are among my dogmas. I'd like to hear some of yours.

Warmest regards,

Daniel

keyser_soze

okay....uh....what?

Spaz

I see what you're saying about decision, but I think the first step would be to quit with the weird metaphors and analogies (no offense, but I think they're unnecessary ).

My first question is: if you believe that the supernatural claims are true in the bible, what is your basis for saying that the supernatural claims of every other religion or culture aren't true?

Ancient people were superstitious, they didn't understand why things happened so they tried to explain them with gods and tried to please gods, etc. in order to keep bad things from happening to them. If their supernatural claims were true, did gods affect all civilizations thousands of years ago and then quit doing so when people understood why natural things happened?

I see no reason why a dogma is necessary for thought, you can think about whatever the hell you want. A dogma is necessary for control, nothing more.

Because Christianity is vast (which I don't see, maybe you can explain) you believe everything it claims? Do you require no proof or reason? Philosophies are as vast as christianity as far as I can tell, they usually just require no supernatural deities.

There are some good morals in christianity, as there are in all religions, but it does not require adherence to the religion to follow those morals. Most atheists respect their fellow man and have good morals without religions (such as humanism). I personally don't require a religion with a god that maims, kills, and destroys, yet loves me, to lead a good life. That is one reason I have no religion.

fallowcypher

I disagree. Fanaticism devalues its own ideals through the methods it pursues them. There is much sameness in religion and scientology. Both are fanatical in their approach as in any ideology that claims exclusive rights to 'true knowledge'.

danielius

Let me introduce myself a little better, I hope. It's one of the banes of the internet, that we find it much harder to connect in any way with the person, and not just the words they use on the screen, than I hope we would if we met them and talked with them face to face. Of course, there are fantastic perks to the net too, this forum is one of them.

I'm 24, I'm the eldest of nine children, I live in the UK, south of London. I'm gay and live with my partner of three years and our two cats. I cook, I do gardening, I read, I teach, oh, and I also believe in God.

I'm originally from a non-believing background. I certainly wasn't born a believer, just a baby. I grew up collecting conkers, building castles in the snow, counting the leaves on trees, reading books, playing with mates, having fun.

I'm an orthodox Christian, though different from what many have been told a Christian is like. I'm skeptical of weeping statues, or levitating monks. I'm skeptical of Big Business and 'the Dignity of Work' too. In other words, I find nothing wrong in being skeptical. As I said before, thought is about defining your knowledge and understanding, it's about throwing off, cutting back.

I enjoy debating. I don't want to convert anyone, I don't want to mock anyone's belief or, rather, belief in disbelief, I don't want to push Christianity on anyone that isn't interested. If anyone isn't interested in Christianity in relation to healthy, intellectual debate, please stop reading here - you can, you know.

I debate, because I enjoy to debate.

Now, Spaz, you've asked me some questions on the Bible, but I'd like you to answer mine first (protocol and all) - is, for you, the Bible too realistic or unrealistic? It's a starting point, without which we'll go round and round in circles.

So this is your first dogma, Spaz: that dogma is unnecessary for thought.

This is your second dogma, your second stated fixed point of reference.

This is your third dogma: that dogma is necessary for control. I would venture that it is necessary for sanity.

Now, nowhere did I say that I believe everything that Christians say for it. Now, Christianity in itself is different, because as a world-view, it doesn't hold opinions, or speak, or burn people at the stake. People do all those things, often sadly in the name of religion. This is an important distinction. I hope we can all see it.

When we talk about evidence and God, I'm reminded of a Futurama episode I saw not long ago. Bender the robot finally gets to meet God, and he asks him why there's no concrete evidence for his existence. God answers: 'When you do something right, people think you've done nothing at all.' I think this has some truth to it.

Philosophies are fine, but quite a few people find they can't commit to one or another, so they make them in their own image, rather like a vegetarian who says: 'I don't eat any meat, except chicken'. For me, the idea of a private (self-made) philosophy is rather like trying to have your own private sun or moon.

When we talk about morals, we *have* to talk in some sense about the world-view on which they rest. Many charge religious people with being 'sentimentalists', but when it comes to something like cannabalism, it is the Christian who can calmly and firmly state: 'Man is made in the image of God'. My partner, an atheist who I love very much, admitted that he just didn't quite like the idea of eating another person. He was the sentimentalist. After all, there are some people who *do* like enough the taste of human flesh, so aversion is in itself no defence against something. People generally hate war, but it happens.

Christianity doesn't claim 'exclusivity'. The very word 'catholic' means 'universal'. There are brilliant, burning debates in the church even after 2,000 years. We claim a few broad and fundamental dogmas - for example, if we can all agree that man needs food to eat (unless, of course you are a 'breatharian'), then differing over whether it should be a chicken supper or a vegetarian one doesn't detract from the basic principle, on which we can all agree.

And as for 'true knowledge', orthodoxy simply implies that 'Truth' (whatever that is) is true. It sounds something so simple as to sound almost trite, even absurd. Except that many 'freethinkers' positively deny it. They say: 'Ultimately, nothing is really true'. But if that is so, then neither is the statement.

Take care,

Daniel

Luiseach

lol!