Why I am not a Christian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by 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?

They worship God (Allah).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

"Lie" indicates malicious deception. That leaves you not only attempting to prove Christianity is incorrect, but there is malice in attempts to preach it. Good luck.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

Well let's take your example of a man on crutches, but actually on crutches this time. He's religious. I doubt he'd pray for the healing of his leg because most Christians I know would be happy to leave that to the doctors. However I daresay he'll hobble to church (or get a lift from his church friends) and do something he enjoys among company rather than fester at home.

His church friends will probably call round at his home to check up on him. Possibly the vicar might pop round too. Meanwhile he'll probably be happy to know that he's still doing something he considers to be something good and productive other than the same old same old of modern 9-5 existance.

Heinous, isn't it? The funny thing is that he'll probably recover from his injury slightly sooner. Of course, we call this "the pancaea effect" or just the known benefits of staying positive and active, don't we?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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

Explain what's meaningless in saying "liberal reactionary".

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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.

Well, that doesn't get you anywhere unless you've got faith in empiricism.

(In the light of what happened last time round I pointed this out, let me state from the outset that you can't prove the validity of empiricsim by empiricism.)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Lie" indicates malicious deception. That leaves you not only attempting to prove Christianity is incorrect, but there is malice in attempts to preach it. Good luck.

Does the English language have such a thing as the French concept of "pieux mensonge" (lit. 'pious lie'), i.e. a lie that has a benevolent intent?
When I use the word "lie", I do not want to induce that every preacher is malicious. In fact, the religious belief in itself is not necessarily malicious.

Religions are an early attempt by humankind to explain the universe that surrounds us, in a fashion that is understandable for the layman. Such an attempt is not inherently malicious nor benevolent, but simply mirrors human nature. There is a reason why all human cultures developed beliefs in supranatural forces.

However, these explanations can only be false, because we live in an extremely complex universe, that we as a species will probably never fully understand. Science is a very imperfect tool to that effect. And religion is even worse.

About this here thread: "Why I am not a Christian"
Christianty is just yet another religion. I don't feel compelled to justify my disbelief of this particular religion, just like I don't feel compelled to justify my disbelief in any other particular religion. Christianty may be mainstream in the society I happen to live in, but its quality is no different than other religions: Christianty like the others is a simplistic attempt at explaining the universe, an attempt doomed to failure.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Well let's take your example ... don't we?

Do athiests believe in a supernatural Evil? (supernatural anything?)

[BeBMan]

Hm, isn't there enough common evil to believe in?

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Spiffor

About this here thread: "Why I am not a Christian"

the title came from the title of the opening essay.
Is this topic an ongoing OT conversation on poly?

[GePap]

Originally posted by bayraven




Do athiests believe in a supernatural Evil? (supernatural anything?)

No. Evil, like Good, is a human conception, which changes.

Most people in the Middle Ages would have seen the extermination of heretics and heathens as a great Good, in the service of the lord. Today we would see it as a great evil.

The ancient Hebrews sacrificed to the lord- most evangelical Christians today would see that as a perversion and an evil.

What changed? If there is such as thing as absolute evil, supernatural and outside the realm of man, then who is correct? Were the ancient Hebrews wrong to sacrifice? or are we wrong today for not sacrificing?

And to go off Spiffors simple question:

Can a Christian prove to me that Christ died on the cross, came back and is the Messiah, and then show proof that thus Mohammed was not the last true prophet of God, and that Jesus was just another prophet, like the prophets of old? (and note that the Koran does accept the virgin birth of Jesus)?

Or can a Christian prove that there is only one God? And prove that the HIndus are incorrect?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by bayraven


the title came from the title of the opening essay.
Is this topic an ongoing OT conversation on poly?

Let's put it this way: from time to time we have those "Religion is evil" or alternatively "Atheism is evil" threads. You get used to it

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by bayraven




Do athiests believe in a supernatural Evil? (supernatural anything?)

Some do, some don't.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by BeBro
Hm, isn't there enough common evil to believe in?

sure. for myself, delusional as it may seem, i am comforted to believe there is a common source of evil that is ultimately subject to the greater good. Its that whole "peace that passes all understanding' thing.
(if i don't say Satan and God is the above argument palatable?)

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
Or can a Christian prove that there is only one God? And prove that the HIndus are incorrect?

Well, wouldn't it render the whole religion thing irrelevant if one could prove it? I mean, what is an religion without faith?

[bayraven]

Man, i've been sheltered. i've believed that AG/ATH people were just bitter and dissapointed by some percieved failure from God (which is ironic knowing as many bitter Christians as i do)
I appreciate the discourse.

Originally posted by GePap


The ancient Hebrews sacrificed to the lord- most evangelical Christians today would see that as a perversion and an evil.
?

to take issue with just this point; Christians believe in the sacrificial system, starkly stated, blood payment for sin. It is our belief that the ultimate purpose of Christ was to be the final sacrifice. To then offer up a pigeon is pointless