Why I am not a Christian

[monkspider]

Christian Fundamentalists
Atheist Fundamentalists

Both are equally bad and close-minded as far as I'm concerned.

[bayraven]

I've heard theologians say you can't have morality (your stuff listed above) without (their) God.
Ghandi was a good dude.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by monkspider
Christian Fundamentalists
Atheist Fundamentalists

Both are equally bad and close-minded as far as I'm concerned.

As far as I'm concerned, you're bad and close-minded.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Snowflake
Why would one need a religion to have the right intentions and act to the best of his ability? Why couldn't people without a religious belief abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc, using your own words? Do you really have to belive in a supreme being or some supreme beings for you to behave or do things that you believe to be good?

In theory, there is no "need." In practice, it gets sticky. You have an easier time figuring out what to do when you have at least some general idea of what it is you're doing. Since morals are ultimately derived from a religious belief (secular "moral systems" appear, to me, to be rationalizations of preexisting beliefs cooked up to avoid the accompanying unpalatable idea of a God figure), it's hard to work without that foundation. Not impossible, but bloody hard. And many faiths are built on similar ground.

Secular morals are usually built on hamfisted amateur sociological theories, as laughable as "Creation Science" in a different way. They ultimately construct a flimsy and impersonal god figure, vaguely labelled as the Greater Good or something of that ilk, and decide to follow it for reasons unknown, towards goals unknown, based on the consensus that a large number of folks think it's probably a swell idea...and stuff. It's like worshipping John Kerry.

Not that "need" as such is a factor. Continuing the desert metaphor, tired of it as I am at this point, you can try to retrace your steps and it might work, but it's a lot easier to get a map. A guy who says, "I'm a rugged outdoorsman, I don't need a map," might be a brave and resolute spirit, but he's also an idiot, and not to be emulated.

[Snowflake]

Yes the ones who have a map in his hand may laugh at the ones who don't and who try to figure out a way all by himself. But we can't be sure who would be the first to reach the other end, assuming the maps may not be right.

You've got a good example, though.

[Whaleboy]

Secular morals are usually built on hamfisted amateur sociological theories, as laughable as "Creation Science" in a different way

Ummm, utilitarianism? Univeralised morals? Existential free-will->natural rights? You can't look at Aristotolian logic and claim it represents the secular .

You'll note that if God turns out to have the same validity as the tooth fairy, using a system constructed upon that edifice is akin to doing it for no reason anyway, which begs the question of God's existence which takes us back to square one, where methinks the atheistic position is stronger.

I gotta say your take on moral philosophy is somewhere between the sublime and the ridiculous.

[Whaleboy]

You've got a good example, though.

Not really, a journey assumes a path, implies (sufficiently) a destination and a knowable route. None of which apply to this debate imo.

[debeest]

Whaleboy, I read through the first page and found Russell's commentary very worthwhile and the responses not so much so, so I skipped the next three pages. Just wanted to thank you for posting this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
You know my stock response: There is no "scientific argument for God," or against.

This not a debate wrt scientific arguments, this is a philosophical argument. I completely agree that there's no scientific argument against the Judeo-Christianity god, because such an entity cannot be quantified, has no phyical characteristics we know, and simply defy scientific laws.

Originally posted by Elok
How do you know that the interplay of parts is not the passing amusement of a divine will, like children setting up tinkertoys to watch the parts turn?

This sort of arguments is mildly annoying. The people who bring them out don't answer anything, but for some reason refuses to admit they don't know.

Originally posted by Elok
Nor is Hell necessarily a byproduct of sadism. Every parent starts teaching a child good behavior by threatening punishment as consequences for misbehavior.

I am not sure if you realises this, but this amounts to Christianity treating us as children. No, we are incapable of critical thinking, but must be told what to do. On second thought, anybody who's capable of critical thinking will most likely reject religion.

Originally posted by Elok
But a muslim, a jew, a hindu, a daoist, or anything, anything at all, is better than a complacent atheist, who sits smugly in a world full of gossip, lies, hatred and cruelty, and knows with confidence in his heart that Human Reason Will Prevail, though there is evidence all around him that such a thing as human reason doesn't even exist.

You know what's a sad sight? A healthy person insists on walking with crutches. This is exactly what Christianity reminds me of, crutches. Mental crutches to be precise.

What's even sadder is when a bystander tells this person that he could walk on his own, he bellows, "No, my legs are broken! Nay, I don't even have legs!"

I don't understand this at all. What do we need religion for? There is absolutely no indication that a person who is nonreligious is less ethical than a religious person.

Originally posted by Elok
Religion is at least in part the quest to scourge the infection of inhumanity out of our souls.

That's so deeply ironic - since Christianity is the greatest scourge mankind faces. It had never improved any sociopolitical issues. Adding Christianity to any such problems will only aggravate the situation, because all you have done is to add another dimension of conflict.

[Kuciwalker]

From the OP:

"Mohammedans" was the term used for Muslims (with some resentment from Muslims who don’t worship Muhammad) often in Britain before WWII. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were medieval Christian philosophers who established some of the more enduring arguments for God’s existence, which Russell tears into and destroys later on here.

Huh?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Atheist Fundamentalists

That's a meaningless concoction. It's like saying liberal reactionary.

[Kuciwalker]

No it isn't. Though "fanatics" would be a better word.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, I read through the first page and found Russell's commentary very worthwhile and the responses not so much so, so I skipped the next three pages. Just wanted to thank you for posting this.

Thanks, no problem

Huh?

Islam is like Judaism in that it holds that the messianic age is yet to come, Muhammed was not the messiah but the last in a series of prophets (which include the likes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Elijah , and Jesus iirc). As a result, Islam reveres Muhammed but doesn't worship him as a deity, it's analogous to how the Jews revere the likes of King David and Abraham.

No it isn't. Though "fanatics" would be a better word.

Agreed, though you'll find fanatics of every position, I prefer the term dogma, or those that seem to have some kind of faith in this position. The thing with scientific or rational arguments is that they require and ask no faith, merely provisional concurrence, because they can be empirically verified, which undermines and renders faith useless. As a result, I always get alarm bells going off to check the reasoning of those who I think have faith in their argument. One wouldn't expect them to change in the face of superior reasoning and that to my mind is a mistake (that is with scientific/rational arguments of course).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
BeBro: I think atheism is often symptomatic of a failure, or a refusal, to see evil in the world as it really is. Earthquakes and such happen, yes, but much of the troubles of the world are caused by people, to people. We either hate each other or can't be bothered to prevent it. And that springs from within the character of every human. The original Greek phrase for sin is etymologically similar to "missing the mark."

When it is said that nobody is without sin, the meaning is not that we're all overblown cartoon supervillains who want to eat puppies alive, but that there's something within us all that doesn't care what happens, something mad and cruel and selfish. Too often we listen to it. But in a godless worldview-every godless worldview I've heard of-the problem is ignored entirely. People either call our problems a necessary evil or else shrug and say there's nothing to be done about it, it's just human nature. If it is human nature, we need to try to stop being human, because our natural human nature is killing us.

Or worse yet, we blame evil on ideology. That's the most popular delusion that I've seen. Problems are caused by people believing the wrong thing, and if we had a different, more perfect set of ideals, things would be better. The most frequent scapegoat on Poly is Religious Fanaticism. Also favored among various factions are America-Haters, Communists, Libertarians, and Corporate Fat Cats. We firmly believe that catastrophes come about from flawed personal philosophies, even while we propound the completely incompatible belief that zealots, crusaders and assassins are just doing what they want and using their beliefs to justify their actions.

The French Revolution is to me the best example of why this manner of thinking is stupid. It was the first documented religious war without any kind of religion. They had show trials and executions in the name of no doctrine beyond a basic commitment to liberty, fraternity, and equality. The problem isn't some belief, or even lack of it, but that people themselves are freaking nuts.

And I've never met an atheist who really seemed to understand what I was talking about when I said that. They all seemed to think that scientific progress or a stronger commitment to democracy could compensate for human weakness. I've met religious people who are stupid that way too, only their answer is for everybody to take a loyalty pledge to Jesus, give a televangelist a check, and have a big slice of American apple pie. Different kind of stupid, but they're basically culturally biased pseudo-pagans in my book. They believe in magic. But there are some who actually know what they say when they tell you they believe, and I'm on their side.

Well, to be honest, I don't understand you as well I think generalizing about "evil" and how it is caused by "people to people" isn't much better than what you complain about. These are generalities everyone - christian or not - could say, they are always right. Same with this part:

When it is said that nobody is without sin, the meaning is not that we're all overblown cartoon supervillains who want to eat puppies alive, but that there's something within us all that doesn't care what happens, something mad and cruel and selfish. Too often we listen to it. But in a godless worldview-every godless worldview I've heard of-the problem is ignored entirely. People either call our problems a necessary evil or else shrug and say there's nothing to be done about it, it's just human nature. If it is human nature, we need to try to stop being human, because our natural human nature is killing us.

What exactly do you complain about? People have the potential to be "mad and cruel and selfish"? That explains all - and at the same time nothing. So what's your idea? And why do you think a "godless worldview" ignores the bad side of humans?

Similar to the "ideology" part: I don't think that all problems are solved when people would have an "ideal" or "good" or whatever ideology. But at the same time it would be unwise to ignore that in reality certain ideologies caused, or at least fueled absolutely inhumane actions, so of course I don't want them winning ground.

[Spiffor]

I don't have to justify myself saying "why I'm not a Christian", just like I don't have to produce justifications on my non-Muslimness, non-Buddhism, non-Judaism, non-Animism etc.

Christianty is a lie like the other religions. There is no reason to put it on a special pedestal just because it is the mainstream lie in our societies.