AJ113

My first reason for atheism is pineapple whoosh boiler repair service smeg.

joedad

Maybe you could quantify christianity for me. Are you quantifying christianity by eating off the table and wearing your shoes correctly? Am I observing the christian effect when I see a person doing these things? I don't think that's what you mean.

But if your christianity is "outcome based" in this way that sounds easy enough to understand, so provide me with some examples.

And are these examples "demonstrations" of christianity as opposed to christianity being an "experiment" where you are attempting to discover truth, with no guarantee that you will do so, like the mythical Hebrew Golem.

So tell me how exactly you are quantifying christianity and therefore the christian effect?

Jinto

In mny opinion, you know people better through the net than you do in real life. Facts and opinions flow freely, and are not obstructed by emotion as they are in real life.

You do realize that there are a lot of fundamentalists out there who think you're living in sin right now, and who want to make what you're doing illegal, right? If you don't, then I suggest that you visit RaptureReady, ChristianForums, or one of the other Christian boards out there, and ask their opinion of your lifestyle.

Then try to tell us that Christianity doesn't breed bigotry.

It's not that we've been told that Christians are like anything. It's that we have examined Christianity itself, and the way it has been applied throughout history, and found it to be consistently anti-knowledge and anti-dissent. Granted, this does not mean that all Christians are like that, but just because not all members of the Nazi party were anti-jew does not change the fact that the Nazi party was anti-jew.

As for being skeptical: it is not enough that you don't believe in obvious absurdities such as weeping statues - not even fundamentalists believe in those. Rather, it is that you apply the principle of parsimony to all your beliefs - not just the ones that are commonly thought to be absurd.

You seem to me to be a social believer: someone who believes simply because everyone else does. This occurs, of course, on a subconscious level - I am not accusing you of being a conformist. Still, it seems that you believe simply because that's what everyone else does - an element of civilization. Indeed, it was your analogy to civilization that was the giveaway: people accept civilization solely because it is what everyone else is doing. People go through the bother of, say, stopping at a red light, simply because it is what everyone else does. If everyone else goes at a red light, and stops at a green light, then you would do that. The entire basis of civilization is that people go along with what everyone else does in order to avoid the inevitable result of people not doing this: collisions, and an inability to get anywhere.

But nothing more? What I mean is, do you just like talking and listening to everyone else talk, or do you seek to learn something from the arguments presented?

First of all, it's not whether we are for or against the bible. Most of us don't give a flying Clinton about the bible. Why? Because it is just another work of fiction. What we do give a flying Clinton about is the fact that there are a lot of people who don't realize that fact, and who then use the bible to justify their bigoted policies.

Secondly, the reason why we don't believe the bile is has nothing to do with it's content. You see, most of us don't judge the truthfulness of a work based on whether it sounds true, but rather on whether it coincides with other facts about the events in question. Whether or not the book is consistent and logical is also an improtant consideration. A quick jot through the Skeptics Annotated Bible should be enough to convince you that it is not consistent with either itself or reality. In fact, the very fact that many of it's important claims are patently false (the noachian flood, for instance) should be more than enough to convince you that it is a work of fiction. While many people who are willing to pick and chose what parts they believe sill ask me to disprove every single thing in the bible, or hold up examples where it turned out to be right about something, an acuracy rate inferior to that of, say, a Tom Clancy novel, does not make the book a reliable enough source of evidence ot convince me that anything comitted a blatant violation of the laws of physics.

thought (n.) - 1. The act or process of thinking; cogitation.
2. A product of thinking. See Synonyms at idea.
3. The faculty of thinking or reasoning.
4. The intellectual activity or production of a particular time or group: ancient Greek thought; deconstructionist thought.
5. Consideration; attention: didn't give much thought to what she said.
6.

1. Intention; purpose: There was no thought of coming home early.
2. Expectation or conception: She had no thought that anything was wrong

So, how the hell does thought imply commitment to dogma?

And of course there is such a thing as free love. Ever hear of the 60's?

Really? And when exactly are you going to provide support for either of those assertations?

You were saying?

Uh... scientology IS a religon. So, are you saying science is fanaticism? That doesn't make sense.

But Christianity DOES order you to stone unbelievers to death. See Deuteronomy 13. Read it slowly, let the true meaning of that chapter sink in. Amazingly, it is the peole who DON'T kill in the name of Christianity who are perverting it to their own use.

Possibly, but I personally don't think that the people who built II did nothing at all. If there was a God, and he cared in the slightest whether or not people knew he existed, WE WOULD KNOW. If he doesn't, then his existence is irrelevant to any philosophy.

Amazingly, the bible seems full of statements like that. Perhaps because it was written by people trying to give divinhe authority to their own philosophies?

And there is nothing wrong with having a private philosophy. The fact is, regardless of what you claim ot believe, you have your own private philosophy which dictates what you will do. By making your own philosophy, you eliminate the difference between what you say you will do and what you actually will do. If you think about WHY you shouldn't do a certain thing beforehand, rather than just saying you shouldn't because some omnipotnet being says you shouldn't, the likelyhood that you will keep your philosophy is substantially increased.

It is the Christian who can provide no better reason for their morality than that some other person told them to act this way, an unproved assertation, and one that is irrelevant anyway. So a deity wants us to act a certain way? So what? That doesn't mean we should. Nor can the Christian state why they WOULD do what they should - after all, God's going to forgive them anyway, right? Your argument that somehow the Christian has a better basis for their morality than the atheist is without merit.

I thought earlier you said there was no such thing as a freethinker. Except now you insist on making a stupid strawman. We do not say "truth isn't true," we only state that God isn't true. If you're going to equivicate "God" with "truth," you're going to have to be a lot more subtle about it than that.

Infidelettante

Quote: Danielious
Welcome Danielius, you have offered us some interesting thoughts. I hope you stay around awhile.

But Christianity does hold opinions and speak. “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” “For he hath made him to be sin for us ,who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Not only does Christianity hold opinions but those opinions separate people from the Divine and condemns them to eternal torture. Your religion condemns people for not having the righteousness of your God.

If you wish to quote God please confine yourself to the Bible. Quoting from animated TV shows does not help. I regret that Futurama was canceled. I like it.

I am a Pagan. My religion is less than fifty years old and I make it up as I go along. It is as valid as your own and there are no arguments you can make in favor of yours that are superior to those I make for mine. Nor am I less devout than you. Despite your devotion to Christianity it so that it was made up by people, most of who remain unknown to us, in the first centuries of the Common Era.

Could Paul have made the sun and moon the private reserves of Christianity I do not doubt he would have.

That you have chosen your religion, at least in part, because it’s origin was accomplished without input from you only serves to point out the lack of originality in your religious thinking.

If this is a defense of your religion or of you believing it you have fouled it up.

Your partner seems to be a reasonable man.

If the moral world view of Christianity is still, at the time you read this, that the great majority of people who have ever lived will burn forever in hell I fail to see the point in claiming that Christianity has saved the world from cannibalism.

Presenting the views of the Church has though they are no more important that what one will have at lunch is not worthy of you and is insulting to us. The Christian church has used its power to enslave and impoverish millions. It has used torture to protect its interests and has waged war against those who do not admit its doctrine. It has forced science to recant its discoveries and held whole societies hostage to Biblical ransom. If you intend to defend your faith you may succeed. If you intend to defend Christianity you will need to do better.

I am an Orthodox Pagan. It sounds something so simple as to sound almost trite, even absurd. Except that many Theists positively deny it. Truth is what works Danielious. As yet, your arguments are not true.

[QUOTE]Take care,

Daniel [/QUOTE

JT

Anti-Creedance Front

I beg to differ that atheism is an age-old thing and it keeps having revivals. That's what happens with Christianity, rather. It needed a revival with the Reformation, with the "Great Awakening", the Protestant revivals of the mid-18th century, the Billy Graham crusades of the 50's, and most recently, the trend towards trying to affiliate Christianity with pop culture as something "cool". And you notice the time periods are getting closer and closer together. That leads me to believe that in the current trend of Christianity, it is on a path to death. It is spiralling out of control. When in Jesus' age, it was something new, something maybe more liberal, something fresh. Now of days, it is falling to fundamentalism, to doomsday prophecies and cult activity. Much like Islam. And to a certain extent Judaism. Conservatism happens usually when people are afraid of their demise. And religious fanaticism continues to get worse and worse as Christianity and Judaism continue to lose members. Like a rat backed into a corner. I'm not even saying Christianity is bad, just that if it keeps going on this same track, it's going to meet it's end very soon.

keyser_soze

You know, I have come to this conclusion as well.

Tenspace

Okay... I believe that Judeo-Christian religion, at one time, was the bootstrap that helped pull civizilation out of the mire, but now, it is the chain holding us back. It is obviously just a made-up story (as are all religions and mythologies), and my jaw grows slacker every day when I see the silly things people seriously do in the name of the Big Guy.

Is the bible realistic because it teaches the very things we find repulsive? Murder, rape, and a pervasive hatred of women; what a great set of values there, uh-huh. To answer your question, I decided against the bible because it is nothing more than an old book chronicling the then-existing beliefs in Middle-Eastern tribal mythology. We are all arguing over a bunch of campfire stories handed down and edited, generation after generation, a book which tells us not to seek knowledge, and becomes our bible-colored glasses distorting the worldview of everything around us, holding mankind back hundreds, if not thousands of years.

It engages me not. As for its type of water, maybe it is more like Coca-Cola, entering me whole and passing through, leaving behind the few good things and pissing out all the smelly bile. In other words, I have no clue what you are trying to say with your water analogy.

Yikes! I shall attempt to separate the signal from the noise... lessee... "There is no thing as freethought" - never mind, I don't think there is a signal here.

No, it isn't. Christianity says nothing about the cosmos that we know of today. Nothing. Except about how day and night came before the sun was made, or how the earth has four corners, or how one day the sun stopped moving, etc.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Atheist Church? That's like saying, "Healthy Hospital". Atheism isn't a religion. It is the absence of one. Health isn't a disease. It is the absence of one. (I know, a bit simplistic... don't read too deeply into the analogy).

Christianity, maybe it used to make sense before we learned how to learn. But it doesn't any more. It is hurting humanity's ability to survive. It rewards violence, and tells people they aren't responsible for their actions. It helps foster belief in other obvious untruths, like ::ducking:: astrology, UFOs, Santa, Satan (always laughed at that similarity), angels, saints, ghosts, talking animals, mind reading, etc.

No dogma necessary. Open your eyes and look around you. Read, then read more. Learn about evolution, the quanta, and relativity, and accept what you learn; it is the truth which our senses uncover every day, not the truth of an ancient written word, which should guide your decisions.

With respect,

Tenspace

Tenspace

Thanks for making me laugh so hard that iced tea shot out of my nose and all over the screen. But it's okay now, because I am forgiven. And so are you, if you clicked on the button. heheh

Tenspace

Cipher Girl

Hi 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 don't know about christianity, but its followers sure seem to be, at least the more fundamental types that I frequenty seem to run into.

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.

Is this your best argument for the existance of god? So, if I also don't believe in Santa, then Santa must be real too? After all there are stores and websites devoted to the chubby guy as well.

We have a lot of discussions on this web site about the christian god because it is this god's followers that go around shoving thier religion at everyone (at least those of us in the US).

To argue that the Bible is too violent is at the same time to argue that it is too realistic.

So Terminator 2 (or any other action flick) must be real as well, it's full of violence.

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.

So you base your choice of religion on what everyone around you is doing?

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

I have no dogma, I'm dogma-free.

don't want to mock anyone's belief or, rather, belief in disbelief,

WTF? belief in disbelief? What are you trying to say? One either has a belief in something or one does not. The two are mutually exclusive.

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.

"Truth is true"? This says absoulutely nothing. I can say "A tree is a tree.", "A cat is a cat.", "A god is a god.", and etc. So what? And who here has said "Ultimately, nothing is really true?" Not me for sure. I can state that "The sun came up today May 31." This is a true assertion which contradicts your assertion that freethinkers say "nothing is true". Therefore your assertion has been proven false with an example.

Now, Spaz, you've asked me some questions on the Bible, but I'd like you to answer mine first (protocol and all)

But correct protocol would involve you answering those questions that arose from your assertions in the OP.

Perhaps you would be interested in reading up on refutations to religion in the II library section. I'm sure that you will find it interesting.

If my tone is too harsh for you danielius, please let me know. I'm frequently blunt and to the point. I don't use flowery language which can confuse the reader and obscure my point.

Have fun here and stick around.

Spaz

Is realism even relevant? Many stories are written realistically, in order for people with imaginations that aren't that great to understand it . Parts of the bible are realistic and some aren't, it's not that black and white. People really do have wars and people really do die, but there's no flood that covers the earth nor are there people that rise from the dead. The bible reads that same as many stories with realistic elements as well as the unrealistic fantasy elements that help get the story's point across.