Why I am not a Christian

[Urban Ranger]

Yup, including writing about his own death.

Also there's a lot of material on the 'Net, such as Internet Infidels, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, etc.

[Whaleboy]

After my current book, I'm going to start work on a new novel which depicts Jesus as a female sexual predator (you may remember my original idea was to have Jesus as gay), and Mary (his mother) as a prostitute.

[Berzerker]

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did.

First, Russell didn't show this to be unwise, only that many Christians ignore it. And he butchered the passage by ignoring the context - Jesus was telling a specific group of people not to judge lest they be judged. Hypocrites! Before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye, remove the plank from your own eye.

Wrt turning the other cheek, Russell again shows many Christians violate this teaching but doesn't show it to be unwise. Violence is cyclical and Jesus was trying to end the cycle...

[Whaleboy]

Ummm, no-one said that Russell was showing Christ to be unwise, merely that he was not the best and wisest of all men, which doesn't mean he was unwise.

And are you suggesting that the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged" is something only to be taken in a very specific context and is not a Christian tenet accordingly?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why do you think I'm full of myself?

Do you really want to put that on a forum where I might be tempted to reply

[Whaleboy]

It's just been Christmas, therefore I've lost weight

[Shi Huangdi]

These threads are pretty stupid, nobody ever gets convinced, they mainly are an exercise in producing hot air. But just a few points;

You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason.

Bear in mind that this simply means it would be possible to do, not that anybody has done it.

"My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.

The "What made God " argument is an attractive counter, but is fallacious.

The necessity of things to have a cause is something that applies to objects in the natural world, which follows the natural laws of physics. A ball at rest will remain at rest unless some force acts upon it. Were we to suspend the natural physical laws of the universe, the ball could for no apparent reason fly up on it's own and smack Whaleboy in the face, it could suddenly expand to being ten times it size.

God is a supernatural being, and is thus not subject to the natural laws mentioned, notably Thermodynamics. Properly called the cosmological argument, you are still left with the problem explaining how the natural universe came into being.

At that point, we start to depart from Philosophy and enter into the realm of advanced Physics. That's beyond my level, but Jon Miller (a grad student in physics) in explaining this to me mentioned many physicists today except there being some supernatural cause to the universe precisely from this problem.

They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.

We're dealing with questions of physics again, so I'll just point a good many physicists do hold to God's existence. What I would be pointing out that what appears to be chaos could be the result of a more complex order.

If I were to throw a pair of dice, it would appear the result is random. But in fact if I knew everything about the physics of the dice, the throw behind them, gravitational forces, air pressure, etc., and we were able to calculate all them, we would be able to perfectly predict the result of the dice throw.

The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

But take that argument up a few levels and it becomes a little harder to say that we simply adapt to the circumstances that are there. As I understand it, modern Physics holds to four major forces in the universe: The Weak Force, the Strong Force, the Electromagnetic force, and the Gravitational force, all of which have a roughly set value. Now, one could argue that we are merely the products of those certain values, and that had they been different we would just have a different universe. But as I understand it that is not really the case- had any of these forces been off a little, the universe would not have formed in such a way as to allow any kind of life. Again, you would need to ask a physicist for the exact details of this, but I believe it has largely to due with the Big Bang not occurring or the stars not cooling.

If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.

And so question here posed to us is why the author chooses to plagiarize Socrates' Euthyphro argument.

What I would say here is you are wrong to make a firm distinction between God and good. Rather, God is total essence of perfection is good. The concept of good is determined by what is like God, this is that are like God and things that are in accordance with the nature are called good, to the degree they are not in accordance with God's nature they are called evil. I suppose if you wanted to, you could think of good as being a descriptive term, describing to what degree an action is in accordance with God's nature.

The Character of Christ

Sure, if you were to take random quotes from the bible, you can find things that seem out of accord with modern practice, or seem to be wrong. You could go even further and point out some apparent contradictions. However, the Bible is a complicated book, wrote thousands of years ago, in another language, and within a historical context and in the context of the religious tradition. This is where the study of scripture takes off, people who are advanced in knowledge of Hebrew and New Testament Greek, people who understand the context, and from there moral theology takes off in philosophically interpreting Christ's statements into a system of morals.

"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom";

Referring to the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.

Hell, the ultimate separation between ones self and God, is a voluntary choice. It is the result of the rejection of God, and a refusal to be united with him. St. Therese of Liseiux said that if one of the souls in hell were to cry "Lord, have Mercy", they would fly up from Hell. Of course, how we are in this life effects the state of our soul and whether we will respond to God's love in the next.

These are admittedly brief and incomplete answers, but that is because we have been over this debate many many times before, and I am familiar with how productive they are, and how many people are swayed by them, and so thusly refrained from a more lengthy response.



Refering to the ressurection and ascension of Christ.

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.

Hell, the ultimate seperation between ones self and God, is a voluntary choice. It is the result of the rejection of God, and a refusal to be united with him. St. Therese of Liseiux said that if one of the souls in hell were to cry "Lord, have Mercy", they would fly up from Hell. Of course, how we are in this life effects the state of our soul and whether we will respond to God's love in the next.

These are admittedly brief and incomplete answers, but that is because we have been over this debate many many times before, and I am familiar with how productive they are, and how many people are swayed by them, and so thusly refrained from a more lengthy response.

[Berzerker]

Yes, but Russell doesn't show these to be unwise, he addresses the contradiction of Christians who don't practice Christianity. And yes, the "judge not" passage appears within a specific context - a message to hypocrites. Read the entire paragraph and it becomes clear what Jesus said. Without that context, Jesus would appear to contradict himself when telling his followers to judge but to do so wisely. Given Russell's obvious mistake, the rest of his biblical readings need further investigation. For example, the fig tree incident - that was a parable, not an indictment of a tree that wasn't flowering out of season. We need to learn what he meant before indicting him as less than wise...

[Berzerker]

Bear in mind that this simply means it would be possible to do, not that anybody has done it.

Does the Church need another 2000 years to do it?

[Drogue]

2000 years isn't that long a time.

[Whaleboy]

Bear in mind that this simply means it would be possible to do, not that anybody has done it.

Accepted but on an unrelated note I disagree with that dogma, I do not believe that in the context of logic as we use it, God can be shown in a valid argument, though I will accept there are sound arguments for God, reliant on faulty premises.

The necessity of things to have a cause is something that applies to objects in the natural world, which follows the natural laws of physics. A ball at rest will remain at rest unless some force acts upon it. Were we to suspend the natural physical laws of the universe, the ball could for no apparent reason fly up on it's own and smack Whaleboy in the face, it could suddenly expand to being ten times it size.

Russell also says that there is no compelling REASON that things need a cause, an argument he puts very well in a debate with Rev. Copleston. That's obviously a specific argument that works under certain circumstances, best read the debate itself. http://www.ditext.com/russell/debate.html

God is a supernatural being, and is thus not subject to the natural laws mentioned, notably Thermodynamics. Properly called the cosmological argument, you are still left with the problem explaining how the natural universe came into being.

If God is not subject to the laws of entropy then God by definition cannot interact with this universe at all, which leaves the only possibility for God being the very cause of the univere, which the PSR sees to nicely .

Properly called the cosmological argument, you are still left with the problem explaining how the natural universe came into being.

You'd be forgiven for not distinguishing between the causal and the cosmological argument, the cosmological argument involves two "layers" if you will of causes, one perpendicular to the other, so verticle and horizontal causes that adds a new complexity but in effect still runs to contradict itself.

At that point, we start to depart from Philosophy and enter into the realm of advanced Physics. That's beyond my level, but Jon Miller (a grad student in physics) in explaining this to me mentioned many physicists today except there being some supernatural cause to the universe precisely from this problem.

And many molecular biologists in my experience too. I have experience in astrophysics too, indeed Einstein and even many of the leading post "God does not play dice" proponents (uncertainty principle) believe in God. Physics of course, does not provide a platform for understanding Leibniz, whose principle of sufficient reason supplants their reasoning (typically an implication from complexity) for God's existence.

If I were to throw a pair of dice, it would appear the result is random. But in fact if I knew everything about the physics of the dice, the throw behind them, gravitational forces, air pressure, etc., and we were able to calculate all them, we would be able to perfectly predict the result of the dice throw.

At that point, Russell is assuming ignorance of deterministic causes at the given moment (where of cause uncertainty principle among others denies that determinism), whereby stats can hold.

But take that argument up a few levels and it becomes a little harder to say that we simply adapt to the circumstances that are there. As I understand it, modern Physics holds to four major forces in the universe: The Weak Force, the Strong Force, the Electromagnetic force, and the Gravitational force, all of which have a roughly set value. Now, one could argue that we are merely the products of those certain values, and that had they been different we would just have a different universe. But as I understand it that is not really the case- had any of these forces been off a little, the universe would not have formed in such a way as to allow any kind of life. Again, you would need to ask a physicist for the exact details of this, but I believe it has largely to due with the Big Bang not occurring or the stars not cooling.

The weak and strong nuclear forces, EM and gravitation are the forces you're referring to, and the PSR still holds for that.

The concept of good is determined by what is like God, this is that are like God and things that are in accordance with the nature are called good, to the degree they are not in accordance with God's nature they are called evil. I suppose if you wanted to, you could think of good as being a descriptive term, describing to what degree an action is in accordance with God's nature.

But all of that is begging the question(s). Not least of which is God's nature in the first place, in that essense, it's circular reasoning.

I suppose if you wanted to, you could think of good as being a descriptive term, describing to what degree an action is in accordance with God's nature.

That still implies a relative dualism of good and evil does it not? In which case, Russells argument stands.

However, the Bible is a complicated book, wrote thousands of years ago, in another language, and within a historical context and in the context of the religious tradition.

By many different people with conflicting and self-evident vested interests, influenced by the politics and economics of the time

Hell, the ultimate separation between ones self and God, is a voluntary choice.

You're using the Jewish notion of Hell, not the Christian.

These are admittedly brief and incomplete answers, but that is because we have been over this debate many many times before, and I am familiar with how productive they are, and how many people are swayed by them, and so thusly refrained from a more lengthy response.

Humour me, it's rare that these debates have any quality of argument but I too have been in many and you'll note the suttle intricacies an individual take on a given argument can have no?

Read the entire paragraph and it becomes clear what Jesus said. Without that context, Jesus would appear to contradict himself when telling his followers to judge but to do so wisely.

But is not that part usually taken figuratively, judging ones own life and actions but not anothers?

Given Russell's obvious mistake, the rest of his biblical readings need further investigation.

My grandfather and Russell knew each other in the 40's and 50's, not closely of course, but my grandfathers memoirs state that he was a capable biblical scholar, and I have no reason to doubt that assessment.

Does the Church need another 2000 years to do it?

I'm very reluctant to say that something is impossible, but i very much doubt it is possibly to create such an argument, irrespective of the time concerned.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The "What made God " argument is an attractive counter, but is fallacious.

Not so. See below.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The necessity of things to have a cause is something that applies to objects in the natural world, which follows the natural laws of physics.

There's actually nothing in physics that states that everything must have a cause. This deterministic worldview stemmed from Newtonian physics, but itself is philosophical, not scientific.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
A ball at rest will remain at rest unless some force acts upon it.

Not necessarily. There's an extremely small chance that it could move 3m to the right, say, due to random quantum movements.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
God is a supernatural being, and is thus not subject to the natural laws mentioned, notably Thermodynamics.

However, as you have already seen, this is a philosophical argument, not scientific argument. Drawing an arbitrarily line right in front of YHWH is fallacious itself.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Properly called the cosmological argument, you are still left with the problem explaining how the natural universe came into being.

Positing a supernatural cause does not answer the question, it merely moves everything back one square. Particularly when this cause is totally ineffable, such as the Judeo-Christianity god.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
At that point, we start to depart from Philosophy and enter into the realm of advanced Physics.

You're moving in the wrong direction. You don't move from philosphy to physics. Physics is about how, it does not answer the question why.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We're dealing with questions of physics again, so I'll just point a good many physicists do hold to God's existence.

When Einstein said "God does not play dice," he was not referring to YHWH.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If I were to throw a pair of dice, it would appear the result is random. But in fact if I knew everything about the physics of the dice, the throw behind them, gravitational forces, air pressure, etc., and we were able to calculate all them, we would be able to perfectly predict the result of the dice throw.

Really? It's going to be hard for you to make any headway in establishing the case.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
But as I understand it that is not really the case- had any of these forces been off a little, the universe would not have formed in such a way as to allow any kind of life.

The Weak Anthropic Principle deals with this nicely.

Simply put, since we are here, raising hypothetical questions about things we don't know for sure to support an argument is silly.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
What I would say here is you are wrong to make a firm distinction between God and good. Rather, God is total essence of perfection is good.

What you are saying is good is arbitrary, as according to your god. If tomorrow YHWH deems genocide is A Good Thing, you are going to follow it without question.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
However, the Bible is a complicated book, wrote thousands of years ago, in another language, and within a historical context and in the context of the religious tradition.

How does this explain two versions of creation in Genesis? Nor this can explain the various contradictions amongst the Gospels, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, which are generally held written within a short time frame. For example, the two genalogical lines for Jesus of Nazareth.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Referring to the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Speaking of which, there are all these conflicting versions of the Crucifiction and the Resurrection.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Hell, the ultimate separation between ones self and God, is a voluntary choice. It is the result of the rejection of God, and a refusal to be united with him.

How is Original Sin a voluntary choice?

Given that YHWH is omniscient, he surely would know that Eve was going to eat from the Tree of Knowledge - even I know, that's just human nature. So why didn't he do something about it beforehand?

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
These are admittedly brief and incomplete answers, but that is because we have been over this debate many many times before, and I am familiar with how productive they are, and how many people are swayed by them, and so thusly refrained from a more lengthy response.

Given that there's at least one (ex) Polytubbie whose deconversion is partly based on the debates we had, I say keep up the good work.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The necessity of things to have a cause is something that applies to objects in the natural world, which follows the natural laws of physics. A ball at rest will remain at rest unless some force acts upon it. Were we to suspend the natural physical laws of the universe, the ball could for no apparent reason fly up on it's own and smack Whaleboy in the face, it could suddenly expand to being ten times it size.

God is a supernatural being, and is thus not subject to the natural laws mentioned, notably Thermodynamics. Properly called the cosmological argument, you are still left with the problem explaining how the natural universe came into being.

At that point, we start to depart from Philosophy and enter into the realm of advanced Physics. That's beyond my level, but Jon Miller (a grad student in physics) in explaining this to me mentioned many physicists today except there being some supernatural cause to the universe precisely from this problem.

I call BS. Jon Miller can me a scientific peer-reviewed paper from a physicist where they cite supernatural forces as a cause to the universe. I'm all ears.

Quantum physics determined a bit ago that, on a quantum level, particles are constantly coming into and out of being without any cause whatsoever. So the "First Cause" argument is still a load of bunk.

[Whaleboy]

The Weak Anthropic Principle deals with this nicely.

Forgot to mention that

Given that there's at least one (ex) Polytubbie whose deconversion is partly based on the debates we had, I say keep up the good work.

???

The first time I read Russell was when I was about 10 or 11, after just becoming atheist and he confirmed it in my mind, and I've certainly heard of cases where people understand the arguments and convinced by them, whereupon when it comes to logic, the atheistic position is greatly stronger in my view.

The usual theist counter to all this is a sidestep... that of faith, that religion is a matter of faith and not reason, and that there are two conflicting belief systems. I maintain that the latter is not that case. Faith and reason regarding a given subject are inversely proportional, that is that having faith in something undermines the capacity and validity of the reason, and being able to reason something renders faith irrelevant. Why take a leap of faith where there's a suspension bridge?

As a result, there is no need for a belief in science or any rational system where you can empirically check the theories. The theistic counter to that is that the likes of evolution is just a theory. That is true, scientific fact as we have it is merely theoretical, such as the theory that the earth goes around the sun, or the theory that if I jump out of my seat, I'm going to land painfully on my arse. You accept it provisionally, based upon the evidence, which in matters like evolution, accretion, big bang theory, continental drift and all the others contested by the God squad, forms a platform of interrelated, self-supporting, easily checked and continually expanding reasons. That is why what we call a scientific fact or theory is different from a wishy washy theory. Their implication by saying "just a theory" is that it's as valid as their own. I'm now of Nietzsche's opinion that the Christian form of absolutism, and their accusations of total relativism, are equally childish, and a strawman.

So religion is a matter of faith and not reason? Fair enough. Two points, firstly is that religion comes from the latin "re" and "ligio" meaning roughly "return to bondage/serve". Well perhaps not all of us see our lives in terms of servitute to a higher power, be that a church or God, and the Christians have offered to my mind no compelling reason why such obedience and belittlement is necessary or desireable.

Secondly, if religion is a matter of faith then logically in the same context it cannot be a matter of reason. Therefore, the experience of it cannot be communicated which refutes the notion of organised or collective faith, and secondly that a faith system is attempting to make scientific statements premised upon that faith is a fallacy, for example, that creationism or God is scientifically true, has that faulty subjective premise of faith.

[bayraven]

So many cultures have had the need to create a Creator that His existence seemed dubious. Qualities of the God of the Jews (hence the Christian God) mirror prior understandings of Him. 'Original' biblical experiences are sometimes predated by other historical texts like Gilgamesh vs. Noah, and the practice of circumcision prior to the Jews.
If the majority of people since the time of Christ have not had a personal connection to him, then that majority has been consigned to hell, making the whole system, can I say, not cost effective?
Who made God has always perplexed me.

My failure to understand these things doesn't cause Him not to be. I don't have answers to all the things i wanna know. In this forum, i know it is pedantic to note that proof alleviates the need for Faith.
I have read here many reasoned thoughts on the probability of there not being a God. So I will offer one of the reasons for the strength of my own faith in Christ and watch it be shredded.

The Pharisees and the Romans would have made the apostles instant celebrities if they would just admit they made the whole thing up. Was it merely narcissism that lead to the violent death of every one except John? Would Paul have given up his status and freedom, and suffered all he did for a lie?