Are we wasting our time here?

[Cross Examiner]

Oh yeah, validity before soundness …

Would you disagree that our talks here tend to generate more heat than light? I don't mean to come off as overly cynical but this place presents a problem to my eyes that I'd like to point out for yours. In the darker moments, this all looks to me to be an exercise in futility -- an endless parade of punch and parry with no end in sight, no real progress to be made. Do you ever tire of this? A thousand thousands of words; some angry, others mild, some foolish, others insightful, yet hardly a soul moved to one side or the other. I wonder: are we really so stagnant in our ways, so set in our views or is something else going on? Given that we are each reasonable and honest, charitably, I'll go with the latter. So let me then call out the real problem as I see it: we tend skip some important steps that meaningful dialogue depends upon. That is, we'll look at an argument and rush to the question of merit without duly considering the more basic questions of clarity, relevance and significance.

I hope this doesn't look like finger wagging since I'm probably the worst offender. Really. Mea culpa. And I mean by this to emphasize the 'me' in the 'we' in the rebuke above. In fact, it is my own historical penchant for skipping steps that prompts this tirade. In the past, when someone posed an objection to something I said I would often respond directly, without question as though I understood what the objector meant with perfect clarity only to find out later, after some wasted time and effort, that I had missed the point from the start. Or maybe I would understand the meaning of the objection well enough but in my eagerness to reply, would wrongly assume it relevant to and significant for my own position, thereby driving both of us off the highway and down a rabbit trail. I'm pretty sure others have tried to clue me in about this habit, but how does the saying go about teaching pigs to whistle?

And this brings me to my point. No, I don't really think we're doomed to forever talking past one another without hope of understanding, much less agreement. I think our talks need not be a waste of time at all; it simply comes down to breaking bad dialogue habits and replacing them with good ones, like practicing a right order of operations. Sounds easy enough, doesn't it? Except that old habits die hard. If I'm going to make a new habit out of this due process thing, this right order of operations, I'll need some practice. And that's where you come in. Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Yes, just one to start with so make it your favorite. Put your best foot forward. This might require a bit of introspection on your part. Once I get a few good ones to choose from, I'll then ask the objectors a few questions in order to make sure everything is clear, relevant and non-trivial. After these matters are settled, we can perhaps move on to the question of merit. That said, fire when ready.

[Barefoot Bree]

I'm not going to answer your challenge - at least not yet - but I'd like to raise a couple of objections to your opening paragraph. There HAVE been NUMEROUS minds changed via - at least in part - this forum. And I personally have had my world view challenged and subtly changed many times. Don't view "progress" as only the two main opponents in any given argument converting each other.

#1 rule of bulletin boards: remember the lurkers! Many, many people come here, read a little or a lot, and go away with some very thought-provoking ideas.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Tom Sawyer]

Given all the phenomena that have been attributed to God(s) in the past, from storms to epilepsy to the development of the human race, that have since been shown to have completely natural explanations, where do you think that God fits into the equation and why is it necessary for Him to be there as opposed to another completely natural explanation?

That's probably one of the main things I don't get about religion - God just seems to an unnecessary variable shoe-horned into the equation where He's not needed.

[IamMoose]

People can change due to what they read on message boards. I have, though maybe not in the way that some of the people trying to change me had hoped!

Ultimately, debating and discussion are fun. If someone walks up to you in the office and asks you if you watched the football last night, do you tell them no, because it's meaningless and irrelevant? I doubt it .. talking about thing, sharing thing is part of the common human experience. Noone ever said we had to agree :)

[IamMoose]

BTW my chief objection to xianity is that I do not think there is a God. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other objections, ie about the theology, are just extra and rather irrelevant.

[Mageth]

Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Yes, just one to start with so make it your favorite. Put your best foot forward. This might require a bit of introspection on your part. Once I get a few good ones to choose from, I'll then ask the objectors a few questions in order to make sure everything is clear, relevant and non-trivial. After these matters are settled, we can perhaps move on to the question of merit. That said, fire when ready.

This sounds strikingly similar to this other thread you started:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117470

Anyway, following along with what IAmMoose said, my chief "objection" to Christianity is that 1) I find the evidence insufficient to support belief in a god, any god; hence, I am an atheist, lacking belief in god(s); and 2) specifically, I find the evidence for Christianity to be insufficient to support belief in this particular theistic religion or in the Christian version of God.

So, first, and most basic, I lack belief in god(s); second, I do not believe the particular claims of Christianity about their particular version of God.

[BuffaloBill]

Yes, I wish I were watching TV instead. :rolleyes:

[run2white]

I'm not an "unbeliever," but my problem with Christianity as well as every other belief system (atheism, as well) is that there is far too much defense of intellectual attitude and not enough openness to questioning and exploring our misconceptions. (As in Mr. Sawyer's view that the concept of God isn't needed in light of natural occurrence...not considering the possibility that God is the quarks and leptons of nature.)

"More heat than light"...well said.

[Y.B]

I'm not an "unbeliever," but my problem with Christianity as well as every other belief system (atheism, as well)

I guess I have to ask this. How is atheism a belief system, rather than the lack of one?

[Mageth]

I'm not an "unbeliever," but my problem with Christianity as well as every other belief system (atheism, as well) is that there is far too much defense of intellectual attitude and not enough openness to questioning and exploring our misconceptions.

Speak for yourself. I, like many here, started out as a Christian/theist and "openness to questioning and exploring [my] misconceptions" is how I became an atheist. And I still am so open.

(As in Mr. Sawyer's view that the concept of God isn't needed in light of natural occurrence...not considering the possibility that God is the quarks and leptons of nature.)

"God is the quarks and leptons of nature"? That's nice, but totally useless. It's about as meaningful as saying that "God is the dog turds in my back yard."

[TomboyMom]

If you don't think it's worthwhile don't participate. I enjoy it and have learned a lot, so it's worthwhile for me.
There are more than 2 options: Christianity and atheism. There are many other religions, as well as non-theistic world views. It is typical of Christian arrogance to see the world as Christian/non-Christian, as opposed to a plethora of possible world views, of which Christianity is just one minority view.
My strongest objection to Christianity as a belief system is that there is not a shred of reliable evidence in favor of it.
My strongest objection to Christianity as a religious movement is that it has been responsible for so much human suffering and genocide. In particular, it has caused murder, mass murder, rape, arson, discrimination, forced expulsion, infanticide, theft, oppression of my ancestral people, the Jews. As a descendant of those who have suffered untold horrors inflicted by Christians in the name of Christianity, I cannot find anything positive in it. Deeds speak louder than words.

[Gooch's dad]

As others have pointed out, we're not "talking past each other" if minds have been changed--and they have been changed. I think the record is pretty good for people deconverting after coming here, and I have yet to see any atheist from IIDB who has converted to Christianity.

My objections to Christianity? It is fundamentally irrational, most particularly in the doctrine of vicarious atonement. It comes down to a human blood sacrifice to appease the Abrahamic God. In that sense, it is also primitive and barbaric.

[King Rat]

Since most posters here used to be theists and changed their minds, I'd say you are probably in the best possible place for open-minded debate.

p.s. I see Mageth beat me to the punch.

[IamMoose]

DID most other posters here used to be theists? I never have been. I didn't realise that I was in the company of a bunch of ex theists :D

[King Rat]

^^Re-check out the Atheist Testimony thread. If not a majority, a whole passel of 'em!

[Mageth]

DID most other posters here used to be theists? I never have been. I didn't realise that I was in the company of a bunch of ex theists :D

I don't know if it's "most", but certainly a lot of the non-believers that post here are ex-theists of one sort or another. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the majority.

See the "atheists' testimony" thread...

And this time that number guy beat me to it!

[Tom Sawyer]

(As in Mr. Sawyer's view that the concept of God isn't needed in light of natural occurrence...not considering the possibility that God is the quarks and leptons of nature.)


I have to echo Mageth in wondering about the meaning of this. In what way would God be in the quarks and leptons and what would be the difference between a quark with God in it and a quark without God in it?

This is exactly what I meant in my first post about people shoe-horning the God concept into areas where it isn't necessary. Sure, we don't really know a whole lot about what exactly goes on inside of quarks and leptons, so there may be Gods in there that we just don't have the technology to pick up yet, but there's no data to suggest that any kind of understanding of God is necessary for examining the makeup of quarks and leptons.

You are correct that I didn't consider that possibility and I feel properly chastised. I will now chastise you for not considering the possibility that quarks and leptons are made up of elephant tusks.

Also, I have now considered it and feel that there's no evidence to warrant that possibility being probable. If you feel that I have overlooked some evidence, please let me know.

[Plognark]

DID most other posters here used to be theists? I never have been. I didn't realise that I was in the company of a bunch of ex theists :D

I've conducted an entirely fictional and non-scientific survey that pegs the percentage of former theists at around 80%.

At least, that's kinda what it seems like. Weirdos like you and I are the exception to the rule, Moosie :)

[Y.B]

Weirdos like you and I are the exception to the rule, Moosie :)

Yeah, us life-long atheists are few and far between. But so it goes. :D

[southernhybrid]

Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity.

Rather than give you one reason, let me explain to you how I came to my current atheistic position. Like many other atheists, I too was once a Xian. I believed it hook, line and sinker. I was saved and thought I was filled with the spirit of God. It became very difficult for me as a young woman to maintain such a fairy tale belief, so I searched every major religion known to womankind for the truth. I prayed, thought, read and reasoned. I discussed the many possibilities with friends. Eventually it made far more sense given the lack of evidence for a supreme being to come to the realization that Xianity like all other religions was man made.

While it may have some worthy components, I don't see any great value or universal truth in the Xian doctrines. My deconversion was about thirty years ago, so you'll have to excuse me if I seem pretty set in my atheism. It just makes sense. It's the only thing that's helped me live a nice and happy life. Being an atheist means never having to worry that your nonatheist friends will be punished for having the wrong beliefs. :) Maybe in addition to the god belief, it's the exclusivity of conservative Xianity that I find so repugnent. You're either with us or you're damned. No don't you find that rather stupid?

I'm not personally trying to change anyone's beliefs. I do like to promote tolerance toward atheists as we are often demonized in the US. I like to see people thinking for themselves rather than following dogma blindly. Other than that, I really don't care what you belief but I'd prefer that Xians not try to convince me that their beliefs are true. Once you are able to remove the veil of superstition from your eyes, it's pretty hard to go back.

[Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum]

I'm not going to answer your challenge - at least not yet - but I'd like to raise a couple of objections to your opening paragraph. There HAVE been NUMEROUS minds changed via - at least in part - this forum. And I personally have had my world view challenged and subtly changed many times. Don't view "progress" as only the two main opponents in any given argument converting each other.

#1 rule of bulletin boards: remember the lurkers! Many, many people come here, read a little or a lot, and go away with some very thought-provoking ideas.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

i threw up my hands in frustration at another board i am on when the conversation just seemed to go around in circles unendingly about god knowledge faith etc. etc. i said i wasn't even going to bother anymore because all the people i talked to had defense mechanism after rationalization after circular argument, etc. but people i was NOT talking with directly BEGGED me to continue, the agnostics, the spiritual but not religious, even some religious. they found it fascinating and stimulating.

so the lurker may indeed be what it's about.

PS: i wish i could participate here more... this board is TOO BIG!!!!

[Godless Wonder]

first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Holy crap, do you even read this board? I might as well ask you what's your biggest problem with believing that Alice In Wonderland is really the encoded autobiography of Winston Churchill, who wrote it after he travelled back in time, but was forced to encode it lest he accidentally change the outcome of WWII leaving clues to its decoding which would only be apparent after WWII. The problems with Christianity are that bad.

Alright, biggest problem: The idea that the omnipotent being capable of creating the entire universe would create a game of hide and seek in which he omnipotently hides, yet supposedly metes out "everlasting punishment" to those who fail to "find" him (yet even those who "find" him aren't really sure they have found anything) and the "clues" this monster leaves to his existence consists of a very very old and many-times overtranslated book which exactly resembles mythology in every respect, and this being has furthermore constructed the universe in a way which contradicts this book.... oh hell, it's all just so mind-bendingly, obviously completely-over-the-top stupid.

[maddog]

Thank you for posting this thread, Billy. My purpose in being on this board has been to find some rational theists with whom to have a conversation without needing to be defensive. Someone with whom to have a mutual discussion in which it is possible for each to admit what s/he doesn't know and isn't sure of. Not to talk past one another; not to reply simply to maintain one's position. To have a genuine dialogue.

I have objections to more than simply Christianity. Christianity is the theistic position with which I am most familiar, however, in my native culture ("The West," specif. 20th-21st C. USA) My specific objections to Christianity are numerous. Perhaps most fundamentally is/are that (1) I see no evidence of the God described to me by Christians, and (2) in a related vein, I find the concept of the Judeo-Christian, or Abrahamic God incoherent. IOW, it's difficult to see evidence for something which is itself, to my thinking, an incoherent concept. That, I suppose, is a basic problem I have with the theoretical understanding of "God."

In practical terms, however, what I find most objectionable in my day-to-day living is the doctrinal exhortation to virtually all Christians to proselytize, evangelize, or otherwise undertake a "mission" to "spread the gospel." The inability of Christian adherents to simply let others live according to their own conscientiously held moral positions, and to insist, supported by government power if at all possible, that all people adhere to doctrinal Christian "values" is the greatest threat to my liberty of conscience. The inability to accept that I am a moral agent with my own views; the inability to accept that people of conscience may reasonably disagree about important questions: THAT is the most pressing issue, to me, concerning Christianity in my country.

#1063

[Javaman]

remember the lurkers!
I just want to second (third+?) this statement - as of this typing there are:

Currently Active Users: 556 (266 members and 290 guests)

That's more visitors than members. Granted, some of the guests may be members who haven't signed on.

[sharon45]

That the NT is an absolute blatant lie, and that lie led to unforgivable amounts of destruction and continues to do so.

[funinspace]

BGiC,
A waist? Allot depends on why one is here. But yes, there probably is the equivalent of many spin classes going on here as a transportation model. There is much more here than god bashing. And would you suggest that not a singular strand of 1 of your opinions has been altered by your time here? Well, first to say "one thing" stands out would be like to say the answer to the meaning of the universe is 48. It just aint that simple. But, hey since you want a bone thrown...

There nothing approaching a grand Deluge with Noah and his entourage; nothing approaching a Moses with 400 years of Egypt and the grand exit; without Moses to write those grand first books, who is Yahweh then; and without a Yahweh; who is J(Y)eshua calling upon…

[Godless Wonder]

Granted, some of the guests may be members who haven't signed on. Or search engine spiders. They tend to come in packs from what little I know.

[Bright Life]

Or search engine spiders. They tend to come in packs from what little I know.


Packs of lurking spiders?!?! You're creeping me out, man!

[Lemur]

Ha, you never answered my question about why God had to kill all the people in Noah's flood with a giant tsunami instead of using a more humane method, like the seemingly instantaneous method God used to kill the Egyptian firstborns.

You also never provided an answer to the Orthodox Jew Problem -- whether you think that, using everything you know about Christianity, RED DAVE's (I think I remember correctly) Jewish grandmother who died in the Holocaust is probably now in hell.

Here's also a large number of questions which were repeatedly asked but which never got any response

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2248117&highlight=escapevelocity#post2248117

Pick any one of those questions and go for it. If I remember correctly you did not "talk past" us on most of these questions -- they simply went unanswered.

Just reminding you that there are many questions you can choose from from the other thread without having to solicit new ones on this thread.

[Ronin]

Would you disagree that our talks here tend to generate more heat than light?

Yes, I disagree.

I "talk" here and on other forums to simply express my own views in the open market place of ideas and concepts.

Over many years and during several exchanges tempers have flared (heat) to the temporary detriment of light (understanding).

Yet, I can honestly say I have learned something from the entire totality of the experience.

Fwiw, I can also honestly say that many of those heated exchanges I have been involved in were exclusively between atheists.

I don't mean to come off as overly cynical but this place presents a problem to my eyes that I'd like to point out for yours. In the darker moments, this all looks to me to be an exercise in futility -- an endless parade of punch and parry with no end in sight, no real progress to be made. Do you ever tire of this?

First, I don’t think that there is any difference between “this place� (IIDB) and any other open forum for discussion and debate.

That said, it really depends on how busy I am, how interesting the topic is to me at the time, who else is involved in the discussion, etc.

In short, there are far too many variables in life for anyone to precisely quantify "progress".

Nevertheless, since I've been participating in these discussions, I have seen general progress over the years at “this place�.

A thousand thousands of words; some angry, others mild, some foolish, others insightful, yet hardly a soul moved to one side or the other. I wonder: are we really so stagnant in our ways, so set in our views or is something else going on?

I think minds have changed during certain exchanges. Mine certainly has on certain issues.

Also, I don't think that people are static, though it may appear to be so in a text-focused realm such as a bb, and that one would have to review years of posts particular to a member before they could really make an assertion one way or the other.

Given that we are each reasonable and honest, charitably, I'll go with the latter. So let me then call out the real problem as I see it: we tend skip some important steps that meaningful dialogue depends upon. That is, we'll look at an argument and rush to the question of merit without duly considering the more basic questions of clarity, relevance and significance.

Even given the next paragraph, I think you are being far too general and generous with the word "we".

In any event, I'm not sure how anyone could actually provide a factual basis on how "we" perceive a post and/or whether or not "we" consider the more basic questions of clarity, relevance and significance prior to and after a response.

I hope this doesn't look like finger wagging since I'm probably the worst offender. Really. Mea culpa. And I mean by this to emphasize the 'me' in the 'we' in the rebuke above. In fact, it is my own historical penchant for skipping steps that prompts this tirade. In the past, when someone posed an objection to something I said I would often respond directly, without question as though I understood what the objector meant with perfect clarity only to find out later, after some wasted time and effort, that I had missed the point from the start. Or maybe I would understand the meaning of the objection well enough but in my eagerness to reply, would wrongly assume it relevant to and significant for my own position, thereby driving both of us off the highway and down a rabbit trail. I'm pretty sure others have tried to clue me in about this habit, but how does the saying go about teaching pigs to whistle?

But that, in my view, is the most intriguing and interesting part of the evolution of a discussion.

Stating, defending, clarifying, re-stating, diffusing, compromising and/or agreeing to disagree once all salient points are made prior to redundancy.

This is the spice of human interaction.

And this brings me to my point. No, I don't really think we're doomed to forever talking past one another without hope of understanding, much less agreement. I think our talks need not be a waste of time at all; it simply comes down to breaking bad dialogue habits and replacing them with good ones, like practicing a right order of operations. Sounds easy enough, doesn't it? Except that old habits die hard. If I'm going to make a new habit out of this due process thing, this right order of operations, I'll need some practice. And that's where you come in. Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Yes, just one to start with so make it your favorite. Put your best foot forward. This might require a bit of introspection on your part. Once I get a few good ones to choose from, I'll then ask the objectors a few questions in order to make sure everything is clear, relevant and non-trivial. After these matters are settled, we can perhaps move on to the question of merit. That said, fire when ready.

Though I have several very significant objections (actually more of a friendly dissent) to the overall general claims of Christianity (as particular interpretations generate others) I would offer the following as my own prime reason for such dissent:

It is apparent through direct experience that in humans we really trust.

We trust them to grow and deliver our food, to build our homes and communities, to heal our sicknesses and broken bones, to protect and serve us, to critically study nature and the universe so that we can bring comfort to ourselves and to others and to really love us.

Now, as for all deities (including the Christian one)…there are a limitless number of imaginary characters that one can claim are responsible for naturally occurring events that we perceive and experience (weather, good/bad fortune, creation of the Universe, etc)

Some characters take humanoid form and others animal and others completely foreign to the sensibilities.

Key ingredients of such fantasy beasties are invisibility and super-duper powers.

Most have mythic tales spread about them that become more and more exaggerated as new generations/cultures hear and then continue to spread them (often adding elements along the way in re-interpretation).

The stories of the Gods and Goddesses fit each of the central elements we use to define imaginary characters and so fall into that group as easily as Unicorns, Wizards, Elves and Leprechauns.

Sagan, I feel, said it best given these observations:

“Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.�

[The Inquisitor]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I just wanted to object to the idea that we are not changing anyone's minds here...

Personally, it was through comparing the explanations of the world given by my Catholic upbringing with those of naturalism that brought me to my current (lack) of belief. Although it wasn't specifically through this forum, the arguments were similar enough, and probably would've had the same effect if I had discovered this forum years ago.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

TheOpenMind was conceived and born in January of this year, less than four months ago. Before that, I was what you call a lurker.

I have debated a lot, yes. Heated up, got heated up, counted to ten, etc. If I have ever "taught" it could never compare to what I've learnt. This place makes you use your brain!

I like to think many more have learnt a lot too, and certainly more than this sad example of ADD that's writing this.

Carl
TheOpenMind

[Lord Umbra]

Holy crap, do you even read this board? I might as well ask you what's your biggest problem with believing that Alice In Wonderland is really the encoded autobiography of Winston Churchill, who wrote it after he travelled back in time, but was forced to encode it lest he accidentally change the outcome of WWII leaving clues to its decoding which would only be apparent after WWII. The problems with Christianity are that bad.



Agreed, and seconded.

I am personally weary of debating with Xians, as it feels like I'm defending my non-belief in Santa Claus.

People will believe what they want to believe, no matter how well you articulate your refutations. I once felt compelled to try to correct Xians and their misbeliefs. Now I believe that to be a fool's errand. :banghead:

What I will settle for is to get Xians to understand that atheists are NOT evil, nor the enemy of mankind. Atheists are simply people who lack a belief in god(s). We are not all the same, nor share the same "world view". And from what I have been able to observe, MOST atheists want what's best for society and individuals.

We simply don't believe we need to hang our hats on theism to benefit society. Does that sound SO terrible?

I know this thread is seeking a point by point "why" we reject Xianity. For the answers, I agree with other posters: Read the testimonies of those who've left.

Someone once said, "When you examine why you have rejected other religions, you'll understand why I've rejected YOURS."

So I'll end with this question: "Why have YOU rejected Mormonism/Jehovah's Witnesses/Islam/etc?" When you have answered this question, you'll then know why I reject Christ/Jehovah.

Peace out.

[KingLouie]

There is no such thing as wasted time; time can not be wasted, but only spent.

From the Jungles of Every Moment,

Kang Louie

[sourdough]

Would you disagree that our talks here tend to generate more heat than light?
for a theist maybe,having your beliefs questioned and having no logical argument to back them up must be pretty upseting,that gnawing fear inside you that maybe God will throw you in hell if you so much as question Him..

In the darker moments, this all looks to me to be an exercise in futility -- an endless parade of punch and parry with no end in sight, no real progress to be made.
futility for the believer maybe,b/c they know they have lost every argument in trying to prove the big invisible whippersnaper in the sky :p

Do you ever tire of this?
nope!

A thousand thousands of words; some angry, others mild, some foolish, others insightful, yet hardly a soul moved to one side or the other.
WRONG...,many peoples eyes were opened just by forums like this

are we really so stagnant in our ways, so set in our views or is something else going on?
yes you are,religion is for neanderthals,its obsolete,it doesnt belong into the modern world.
we tend skip some important steps that meaningful dialogue depends upon.
no shit!..like answering ALL the questions people throw at you

Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity.

it teaches hate! (www.evilbible.com/)

its full of contradictions,absurdities,and fictious stories presented as the real truth (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)

it promotes hate towards those who believe differently! (www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm)

[Jedi Mind Trick]

BGIC said:
Would you disagree that our talks here tend to generate more heat than light?

Yes, I would disagree. I came here as a Christian and the dialogue here helped me see the light.

[orac]

Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Yes, just one to start with so make it your favorite.
It's an old joke:

A muslim, a christian, a guy who thinks that space aliens are hiding behind comets waiting to rescue a bunch of suicidal eunuchs, a wiccan, and a hindu come onto IIDB, and each of them in turn posts "you should all just have faith and believe in my god, then you'll have a geat life and all will be wonderful after you die, too." (Threats of an unhappy afterlife for non-compliance are quite common, too.)

The atheists just sigh and say "that's great, show me the evidence that supports your claims, so that I can pick the right one to believe." None of them understand this and they leave, convinced that atheists are too closeminded to understand The Truth. The next day, twice as many appear, all convinced that they are the first to offer the stunning "don't think, just trust me!" argument. You don't want to know how upset they get when it doesn't work out well.


Some days it's so bad that the existance of a christian who even understands that little story would seem to qualify as a miracle of biblical proportions. One who can distinguish between "christianity is nicer than islam and makes me feel all fuzzy (with or without evidence to support the warm and fuzzy Jesus wants you to be happy idea)" and "christianity is true, islam is false, and here's genuine verifiable evidence to prove it" would probably cause mass fainting all over the globe.


The objection is quite simple - there is no evidence to show the christian faith to be valid, just as there is no evidence for the others. The only way to overcome this objection is to show evidence that (a) proves that a deity exists and (b) proves that the deity matches a particular religions description of their deity. Without this evidence, there is no possible way to distinguish all the competing claims and no reason to believe any of them.

I request evidence to support your claims. Put up, or shut up. :)

[froggy]

Would you disagree that our talks here tend to generate more heat than light?

It depend with individuals I think. The younger the age the hotter he/she is, but limited experience does the same for any age regardless of their backround.

an endless parade of punch and parry with no end in sight, no real progress to be made.

What progress you have in your mind is the determining factor of the outcome. I have something in my mind to achieve and I have hardly failed. You know why? because I don't even bother with the result, if it is there great, if it is not there I don't care. I don't do this for reward, any reward except keeping me busy.

I believe my stand is the correct one and I want to share it with others. If they reject it I want to know why. If their rejection I find it reasonable than I review mine. If the rejection is just for the sake of it I just keep moving, life goes on with them or without, with me or without. Sooner or later someone will agree with me if I am right. Sooner or later I will agree with somebody if he/she is right. We must strive for common ground which humanity long for.
There is a saying: "The old dog does not learn new trick" but I found it this saying over rate, most of the old dogs are still learning new tricks day after day.

Do you ever tire of this?

Tired no, but occasionally I need time for myself to contemplate what I have done and what I am going to do, for me myself my family and my ideas in writings.
Write what you have in mind and present it to others, the writing benefitting you yourselves, but think before start writing.

There are two majors and foremost direct appeals from Islam to everyone, read and write.

[Philippe*]

I am not an atheist nor a christian myself but this forum has really helped me in my thoughts during a period, but now I think it is about to finish, I have done what I wanted to do. What I can say it is that christianity is not only far too incoherent for me on an intellectual level, I think I will never be able to accept how the Bible is the word of a loving and just God (the Bible and the Koran are both the most violent books I have ever read), but it is far too incoherent and even cruel for me on a spiritual level, if christians really practise the love of the neighbour they couldn't accept in joy what they believe, actually for many this joy is closer to euphoria and conditioning than love of their neighbour. Concerning to me, Paul, Saint Augustin, Luther, Calvin aso... were a bit deranged, unhealthy and nevrotic. The least that we can say is that it is not too difficult to see it yet.

Philippe

[Howard]

I’m just here for the clam dip and loose women… plus it’s a sanctuary of sanity in a God-crazy country.

[Clivedurdle]

God is the dog turds in my back yard

I need that God! A Freudian God!

Aren't there verses about the Lord being a sweet smell?

Yes! Yes!

Smelly Smelly Smelly Lord God Almighty!

[Cross Examiner]

Thank you for your considered responses. I apologize in advance for the dry manner. I see why the DMV employs robots that look like humans. Please find your name and chief objection to Christianity, as best I understand it, in the list below. In chronological order of response we have:

Tom Sawyer: God is increasingly unnecessary as explanatory of natural phenomena.

IamMoose: I doubt or even deny that God exists.

Mageth: I have not seen sufficient evidence for God’s existence and/or Christianity’s truthfulness.

run2white: Christians often close their minds to inquiry.

TomboyMom: I have not seen sufficient evidence for God’s existence and/or Christianity’s truthfulness.

Gooch’s Dad: The doctrine of the Atonement is irrational.

southernhybrid: I doubt or even deny that God exists.

Godless Wonder: God hides yet punishes men for not finding Him.

maaddog: It is implausible or even impossible that the qualities Christians ascribe to God coexist in a single entity.

sharon45: The New Testament is a lie.

funinspace: The historical reliability of the Old Testament, upon which the revelation of God and the veracity of Christianity rests, is doubtful.

Lemur: God has killed men in unnecessarily painful ways.

Ronin: Theism is not falsifiable.

The Inquisitor: The Catholic view has less explanatory power than a naturalistic view.

Lord Umbra: I reject Christianity for the same reason(s) that Christians reject other religions.

Sourdough: Christianity teaches hate.

orac: I have not seen sufficient evidence for God’s existence and/or Christianity’s truthfulness.

Phillipe*: The Bible is intellectually and spiritually unsatisfying.

Clarity before analysis. You'll note I’ve taken the liberty to reduce your multiple objections to a single objection. I have also specified and condensed your objection as best I could. In some cases I may have even added content in order to bring out meaning I thought implied. If in doing so I have misunderstood or significantly misrepresented your objection, please let me know before we move on much further.

Postscript: I’d like to redirect attention to the opening post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2353392#post2353392). In particular, please note the second half of the third paragraph. This is ‘the point’, if you will. Everything else I wrote is secondary. Thanks for reading.

[fast]

Billy Graham is cool,

I hope you attended the Billy Graham School of Evangelism in Asheville. If you didn't, you missed an exciting opportunity.

My question to you as you begin this little journey, "what exactly do you hope to accomplish?" -- the real agenda, if you will.

I'm not exactly on your side, but if there's a way I could possibly help, feel free to call upon me. I may not know the answers, but I know someone that knows them all ;)

[Mageth]

Wow, I just love a good game! What is this, twenty questions, cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek, or Old Maid we're playing?

As for your canned condensation to my response and the response of several others:

"I have not seen sufficient evidence for God’s existence and/or Christianity’s truthfulness."

Let me clarify my stance:

1) I lack belief in god(s). (Drop the upper case). Why? Insufficient evidence and lack of compelling arguments.

For similar reasons, and in some cases some additional reasons:

2) I lack belief in God, as in a "personal" creator-type God, of any sort.

3) I lack belief in the Biblical Creator God(s), the one(s) introduced to us in Genesis 1.

4) I lack belief in the God of Abraham, the personal deity he brought with him out of Ur. (and the personal Gods of Isaac and Jacob, as well).

5) I lack belief in the God of Moses, that amalgam of the gods in (3) and (4), with a few other gods thrown into the mix.

6) I lack belief in the evolving forms of that God from (5) that we see throughout the OT.

7) I lack belief in the general Christian God introduced to us in the NT, a further morph of the God from (5) and (6)

8) I lack belief in the many variations of the Christian God of (7)

9) I do not believe that a man named "Jesus" was also the "God" of (7) in any shape, form, or fashion.

10) I lack belief in the various forms of the Trinitarian God that have arisen from the basic belief in (9)

11) I lack belief in the various sectarian forms of the Trinitarian God of (10) (e.g., the Catholic and Protestant variants)

12) I lack belief in whatever particular version of God you believe in, BGiC. I assume it's one of the variants of the Protestant variant mentioned in (11).

13) I lack belief in any and all of the various Gods that have branched off from (3) through (11). Including, for example, the Allah of Islam and the Mormon God.

14) Related to (3) through (11), I lack belief in the Bible as a reliable historical document. Most if not all of Genesis is mythos, much of the rest of the OT consists of what are most likely myths, legends, or at best generous embellishments of actual events and people. And I look at the NT the same way. The Gospel accounts, in particular, I do not consider to be reliable historical documents. They're religious documents and not historical records, and I think it's highly probable that they are at best recordings of "legends" built around a historical figure with liberal embellishments, at worst works of total fiction.

15) Covered by (1), I suppose, but a similar breakdown could be made for other gods - deistic gods, pantheistic gods, and polytheistic gods. I lack belief in all of them.


Now, look at the above. What this kind of analysis does for me is highlight the historical process of how we humans have invented and evolved god-concepts. This is one more reason that I lack belief in god(s). It seems to me to be that it's far more likely that we've invented gods than the other way around.

We've had motives to invent gods, we've had opportunities to invent gods, we've had the tools with which to invent gods (our imaginations), and, lo and behold, when you look at the historical evidence, it's quite clear to me that we did invent gods. Hell, look at all the many variants of gods that we've had, and still have. You can't tell me that we're not more than capable of inventing gods to suit or needs or desires? What good reason is there to believe any particular one of these is actually true?

So, to convince me that your particular God is true, or at least that belief in your particular God is justified, you're first going to have to go through (1) through (11), and also deal with (14).

Lotsa luck.

[Cross Examiner]

Let me add to my prior post that if you do not let me know that you want to change your objection as I've written it here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2355316#post2355316) then I'll assume by your silence that you like it the way it is and so move on the next step. We've got to put a limit on this thing. So let's say I need to hear from you within the next 24 hours or so. Oh, and I don't mean this to come off as a game at all. I am very serious about hearing your single best objection to Christianity and checking it for clarity, relevance and significance. But I've learned I need to move methodically. I hope you don't mistake that for game-playing. I also understand that for most of you, if not all of you, your unbelief rests not upon a single objection but upon the force of a cumulative case made up of numerous objections. So, for what it's worth, I assure you that your cooperation in narrowing things down is appreciated.

[maddog]

The incoherence of the God concept is basic to my theoretical objections to theism and Christianity.

The theoretical incoherence of the Christian God is less important, however, than the practical effect of Christians on my life. I could live without concern if Christianity believed in an incoherent God, but kept to themselves. It's the acts of Christians, out in the world, BECAUSE of their Christianity, which forms my most important objection to Christianity. Chrisitianity is not content simply to "be" for its adherents. No, Christianity does more. It believes that it has the one and only way of living, the one and only answer to how to live a good life, the one and only answer to moral questions. This exclusivity of belief, coupled with evangelism leads everyday Christians to act in ways so as to force their beliefs, doctrines and practices upon everyone. Christianity in America today seeks theocracy, and is intolerant of other conscientiously held beliefs. Christianity's organization for political ends is dangerous for my life. THAT's my most important objection to Christianity.


ETA: Billy, if you are sincere about creating better dialogue, more light than heat, more open-minded discussion, you might want to re-think your strategy. You essentially gave a mea culpa, but then asked things of US FIRST, without giving of yourself first. And what you asked of us -- one, and only one, single most important objection -- is fraught with danger for clear communication. For one thing, you've been around here a long time. Long enough to know, without having to ask, what some major objections to Christianity are. I'm not sure why you need to ask. Second, it's misleading to simplify too much what is in its nature complex. Then YOU further reduced what we said to what YOU are comfortable with. Your purpose is, however, still hidden and in the background. Now you are asking us to accept your reduction and restatement of our objections by putting time restrictions on us, when you still have not put forth what you intend to do and how you intend to do it, if indeed you are interested in having better dialogue. This feels controlling and manipulative, to me. Just to let you know where I'm coming from. I'm willing to participate, to a point, but if better communication is to be achieved, and less talking "past" one another, I'd like to see you be a bit more forthcoming.

#1065

[Godless Wonder]

Godless Wonder: God hides yet punishes men for not finding Him.
God supposedly hides while supposedly having created the universe in such a way that radically contradicts the supposed clues we are used to supposedly find him (though no one verifiably has found him) and supposedly punished those who believe what they see in the universe rather than what the contradictory books (which books?) say. You can't make a "nuclear reactor" that's built by a five year old out of legos start working by rearranging the legos, asking "which lego is out of place?" The problem is, the whole thing is made of legos.

[Anat]

Of course it's all made of legos (http://www.thebricktestament.com/)!

[Lemur]

Lemur: God has killed men in unnecessarily painful ways.

Please do not generalize my question(s). I want a specific response to my specific question. Since you want just one question you may work with the Noah's flood question.

Specifically: Why did the supposedly benevolent God choose to destroy humanity and all creatures by a flood in Gen 7 when God, being omnipotent, clearly had other equally miraculous but less painful means available to him? We know from recent events how terrifying it is for people to die in a flood. Furthermore, as civilized human beings, we take care to execute prisoners using the least painful method available (most if not all states now use lethal injection), regardless of how heinous the person's crime was. If we fallen men have such goodness in us, where was this goodness when God executed countless people via flood? Would you be okay if we executed prisoners by locking them in a room and then slowly filling the room with water until the water went to the top?

Please do not answer my question with generalities. I want a specific answer to the specific question. Thank you.

[MadPhatCat]

I am very serious about hearing your single best objection to Christianity and checking it for clarity, relevance and significance. But I've learned I need to move methodically.

Emphasis added...

Did this just happen today? Apprently these reasons and more were given in other threads in which you participated in. And apparently they were ignored previously by you. And in 24 hours or so, you will what, tackle each of these reasons (restated by you) one by one in this thread? I'll believe it when I see it.

And,
Here's my single best objection to Christianity that hasn't been mentioned yet. It ain't got the IPU in it. Therefore it isn't THE TRUTH. Good luck dealing with that one. :p

[Cross Examiner]

Let me say a little about what this thread is and what it is about, since there seems to be some general interest in the matter. In some ways, this is an experiment for me. You probably already sensed that since it deviates from established patterns. It is not like the usual mock trial-thread in which you are a juror or the town hall meeting-thread in which you are a concerned citizen. It is something else, a bit like an experiment. But then again I’m not sure about calling this an experiment since the word ‘experiment’ has sinister overtones. So instead, just think of this as something like a focus group in which you voluntarily opt in or out of. Perhaps this focus group will turn into a something like a trial or a town hall meeting later on but that remains to be seen. Being what it is, you can probably imagine why I’ve been a little cryptic with respect to intent. Shoot, no riddles, I just didn’t want to taint the responses!

Even though I don’t state my intent explicitly, the astute observer will note the signs. For example, the subtitle is telling. As is the personal anecdote. What I’ve told you between the two, in case it is still unclear, is that the question of validity is of primary importance yet is typically overlooked. By pointing this out, I hoped to avoid from the start this conversation-killing mistake. By soliciting your favorite and best objections, I hoped to get what unbelievers think are the real deal-breakers. By listing and emphasizing the qualities that make for a valid objection, I hoped to make it clear where I intended to go once I had a sample set to work with. I also insinuated what I thought we’d find at the end of the road. For that, the title is an important clue. And, if you recall, that is …

Are we wasting our time here? If our objections to Christianity are clear, relevant and significant then presumably we are not wasting time by airing them out, again and again even. But what if our objections do not bear all of these qualities? To use an archery metaphor, what if we have mistaken sticks for arrows? What if we are not even properly aimed at our target? What if the target we are aiming at is the wrong one? What if we have not drawn the bowstring tightly enough to get us to the mark, even if it is at the right mark we aim? And so on. I wondered; does the typical unbeliever really reject Christianity, or something else? From the outset, I suspected that the unbeliever’s best objections, even those of his own choosing, would fall short in at least one of these key ways and so inevitably miss the mark. Though I had my suspicions, I wanted a cause for greater confidence so I put the problem and its outcome, however cryptically, in your own hands.

From the beginning, Christians have staked all on the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. They have said, and still say today, that if He is not raised then He is neither the Son of God nor Israel’s Messiah. Moreover, as St. Paul says, the Christians are first in line for all the world’s pity if He is not raised. And that this is the linchpin upon which all rests is no secret. It is common knowledge that the resurrection is the Achilles’ heel. So what I find most curious is how the unbeliever’s chief objection could be so unrelated to the Christian’s chief contention. This, to me, speaks of a serious disconnect. Perhaps we have been talking right past one another. Perhaps we have been wasting our time. But if we have been wasting our time, I am not necessarily laying the blame for it at the doorstep of the unbeliever. Perhaps the unbeliever’s objections are irrelevant because believers have ceased making the first thing the first thing?

Here is the point: Christianity says, in essence, that God is there and has spoken to man most clearly and forcefully in the person of His Son, as attested to by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Now, how many of the objections offered are both clear in meaning and relevant to this? Some of them deal with the question of God. And I understand that the question of God is logically prior to the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and it’s corollary, whether or not He is the Son of God. So those objections centered on the question of God may indeed be relevant to the central claims of Christianity. But when I look at our sample set, I do not see many of this sort. And those I do see are vague and sweeping. Not specific, not clear at all. Not much use in those. Are these really the best we can come up with? If the unbeliever’s objections to Christianity are vague and irrelevant to what Christianity actually says, then does the unbeliever really reject Christianity, or something else? This is what I’m trying to get at. Let me know your thoughts on the matter.

[French Prometheus]

I've conducted an entirely fictional and non-scientific survey that pegs the percentage of former theists at around 80%.

At least, that's kinda what it seems like. Weirdos like you and I are the exception to the rule, Moosie :)
Count me in :wave:

[Mageth]

I dunno, BGiC. I think my extensive list covered what you think should be our main objection to Christiainity pretty well:

7) I lack belief in the general Christian God introduced to us in the NT, a further morph of the God from (5) and (6)

8) I lack belief in the many variations of the Christian God of (7)

9) I do not believe that a man named "Jesus" was also the "God" of (7) in any shape, form, or fashion.

10) I lack belief in the various forms of the Trinitarian God that have arisen from the basic belief in (9)

11) I lack belief in the various sectarian forms of the Trinitarian God of (10) (e.g., the Catholic and Protestant variants)

12) I lack belief in whatever particular version of God you believe in, BGiC. I assume it's one of the variants of the Protestant variant mentioned in (11).

14) Related to (3) through (11) (12, actually), I lack belief in the Bible as a reliable historical document. Most if not all of Genesis is mythos, much of the rest of the OT consists of what are most likely myths, legends, or at best generous embellishments of actual events and people. And I look at the NT the same way. The Gospel accounts, in particular, I do not consider to be reliable historical documents. They're religious documents and not historical records, and I think it's highly probable that they are at best recordings of "legends" built around a historical figure with liberal embellishments, at worst works of total fiction.

And, if I were to extract the funadmental theme of my objection, I would have to say that it's along the lines of It seems at least as likely to me (and this is based on my research, and so is not simply a baseless opinion) that man created god as it does that god created man. And that objection applies to the "resurrected Christ". It seems at least as likely to me, actually more likely, that that is a manmade concept or "myth" and not an actual historical fact.

So when you say:

From the beginning, Christians have staked all on the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. They have said, and still say today, that if He is not raised then He is neither the Son of God nor Israel’s Messiah. Moreover, as St. Paul says, the Christians are first in line for all the world’s pity if He is not raised. And that this is the linchpin upon which all rests is no secret. It is common knowledge that the resurrection is the Achilles’ heel.

My response is that I see no reason to believe that what Christianity claims about Christ and the resurrection is an historical fact. Rather, it seems much more likely to me that the story, like other such fantastic religious tales, is a product of the inventiveness of humans, particularly when it comes to religion and the supernatural.

Why should I accept this particular religious myth as true, while not accepting all the others? What makes it more believable?

Here is the point: Christianity says, in essence, that God is there and has spoken to man most clearly and forcefully in the person of His Son, as attested to by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Yes, it does. But why should I believe in the resurrection as historical fact, and not as imaginative religious invention? It seems more likely to me that what you speak of was the product of imaginative, and no doubt fervently devoted and believing, minds. Such imaginative minds have invented many other such tales. Why is this one more believable than any other such tale?

Again, I lack belief in the historicity of the resurrection, and of related Christian claims revolving around the life and death of Jesus. Why? There is insufficient evidence to support belief in them. And a viable alternative explanation: imagination and invention.

[Godless Wonder]

So what I find most curious is how the unbeliever’s chief objection could be so unrelated to the Christian’s chief contention. This, to me, speaks of a serious disconnect. Perhaps we have been talking right past one another. Perhaps we have been wasting our time. But if we have been wasting our time, I am not necessarily laying the blame for it at the doorstep of the unbeliever. Perhaps the unbeliever’s objections are irrelevant because believers have ceased making the first thing the first thing?

Or perhaps the unbelievers objections are actually relevant. You aren't going to make these objections go away by saying, "hey, but look at this bit here! That's the relevant bit! Why won't you object to that (and then I can refute you!)" I'm reminded of the scene in Napoleon Dynamite:

Rex- Ok, now I'm gonna need a volunteer. Ok you'll do come on up. Bow to your sensei, BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!!!
Now i'm gonna give you one chance, and one chance only, gimme your best shot. Allright that was good. Now grab my arm, other arm, my other arm. Ok now im just gonna break the wrist and walk away, break the wrist walk away.
Kip- Awwww gosh.

In general, atheists reject all theistic religions, and Christianity is just one of them. Of course our chief objection is not related to the resurrection. The resurrection is just one small claim of a miracle among a pile of absurd claims. Why should we focus on that just because it is important to believers? If two kids are arguing about whose imaginary pony is the fastest, and one kid claims his pony can run as fast as Secretariat, and the other kid claims his pony can out run a Saturn V rocket, do we focus on the fact that ponies don't usually run faster then Saturn V rockets, or do we focus on the fact that neither kid actually owns any freakin' pony? You would have us focus on the "my pony can outrun a Saturn V rocket" claim, while we choose to focus on the "I have a pony." claim. You don't even have a pony.

[Cross Examiner]

Would you really say that your initial sweeping objection, 'insufficient evidence', is a specific objection to the claim of resurrection, Mageth? But let's assume for a moment that you meant your chief objection to match right up with Christianity's chief contention. That makes one so far -- we're on page three already and counting.

[Ronin]

Ronin: Theism is not falsifiable.

I'd like to take this opportunity within the alloted 24 hour period to reiterate a very significant element to my view that you removed.

That being:

It is apparent through direct experience that in humans we really trust.

We trust them to grow and deliver our food, to build our homes and communities, to heal our sicknesses and broken bones, to protect and serve us, to critically study nature and the universe so that we can bring comfort to ourselves and to others and to really love us.

So, in combination with the observable case that "theism" or "gods-belief" is equally as non-falsifiable as any other imaginary proposition leads me to find that there is a stronger case for Humanism than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Mormonism, paganism, Hinduism, Sikism, Jainism, Wicca, Animism, etc.

In short, my objection to "theism" (note: not just Christianity) is:

Humans are more real to me than stories of the supernatural, regardless of the "say-so" of each religion's respective radical clerics.

[Tom Sawyer]

From the beginning, Christians have staked all on the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. They have said, and still say today, that if He is not raised then He is neither the Son of God nor Israel’s Messiah. Moreover, as St. Paul says, the Christians are first in line for all the world’s pity if He is not raised. And that this is the linchpin upon which all rests is no secret. It is common knowledge that the resurrection is the Achilles’ heel. So what I find most curious is how the unbeliever’s chief objection could be so unrelated to the Christian’s chief contention. This, to me, speaks of a serious disconnect. Perhaps we have been talking right past one another. Perhaps we have been wasting our time. But if we have been wasting our time, I am not necessarily laying the blame for it at the doorstep of the unbeliever. Perhaps the unbeliever’s objections are irrelevant because believers have ceased making the first thing the first thing?


This is where I think the biggest disconnect between Christians and atheists occurs. Whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead is a fairly irrelevant sub-topic to me. The whole issue of whether or not there is a God in the first place is the relevant bit, not one event in the story. If there's no reason to believe that the story as a whole is true, then focusing on the particular aspects of one chapter in the story is a moot point in the first place.

It sounds to me like your argument is the equivalent of Star Wars fans who argue on about how Han Solo talked about a parsec being a unit of speed instead of one of distance and try to justify how that wasn't actually wrong and don't take into account that the whole thing is fiction, so it doesn't matter if one particular line in it has a factual error.

If there is no God in the first place, then Jesus wasn't resurrected by him. In order to have any discussion about the merits of the resurrection, you first have to show that there was someone there to resurrect him. That's why none of us mentioned the resurrection as an objection to Christianity - because it is a sub-topic that has nothing to do with our lack of belief in it.

[Cross Examiner]

Let’s take a look at the first sample objection to Christianity: God is increasingly unnecessary as explanatory of natural phenomena. A Christian could grant this for argument’s sake since even if it were true, it would have no clear bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. It’s a bit like someone arguing for P and another responding ~Q without mentioning how ~Q has anything to do with P. As I’ve said already, the question of God has bearing upon who, if anyone, is the Son of God but those objections offered in this vain were of the vague ‘insufficient evidence’ sort. Are such vagaries really relevant to the issue of the resurrection? The hot point seems to be that if there is insufficient evidence for God, then the Christian’s claim that Jesus is the Son of God is cut off at the knees. But is the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God itself a meaningful claim?

[Mageth]

Would you really say that your initial sweeping objection, 'insufficient evidence', is a specific objection to the claim of resurrection, Mageth?

Yes, there is insufficient evidence that the resurrection was an historical event. You've been around these parts long enough to have at least seen this topic thoroughly discussed. And plenty of evidence that people invent myths, and gods - even you must admit that humans have invented a lot of myths and various gods, many just as fantastic, if not more so, as the claims of the Bible.

So what should compel me to believe this particular myth, the myth of an historical resurrection?

But let's assume for a moment that you meant your chief objection to match right up with Christianity's chief contention. That makes one so far -- we're on page three already and counting.

It "matches up" with all claims of Christianity, including the basic claim that the OT and the NT are actually referring to an extant God.

(Again, the way this God evolved from Genesis 1 through the end of Revelation I see as indicative of the creativeness of humans when it comes to supernatural claims. God has quite a long and interesting history, starting out as a rather small and local, and not alone, tribal God or personal deity (as in the case of Abraham) and morphing until we've got the one-and-only Trinitiarian God of modern Christian belief).

[Godless Wonder]

Let’s take a look at the first sample objection to Christianity: God is increasingly unnecessary as explanatory of natural phenomena. A Christian could grant this for argument’s sake since even if it were true, it would have no clear bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. It’s a bit like someone arguing for P and another responding ~Q without mentioning how ~Q has anything to do with P. As I’ve said already, the question of God has bearing upon who, if anyone, is the Son of God but those objections offered in this vain were of the vague ‘insufficient evidence’ sort. Are such vagaries really relevant to the issue of the resurrection? The hot point seems to be that if there is insufficient evidence for God, then the Christian’s claim that Jesus is the Son of God is cut off at the knees. But is the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God itself a meaningful claim?


Assume: Jesus was really resurrected.

Question: How does this show he is the creator of the universe?

Answer: It doesn't.

Asserting that the resurrection is the most important thing in Christianity to believers does not mean that is relevant to non believers

[Mageth]

But is the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God itself a meaningful claim?

If there's no compelling reason, or evidence, to believe in god(s) first, a personal creator God second, the Biblical God third, and the Christian version of the Biblical God in particular, why should there be a compelling reason to believe in the alleged death and physical (or spiritual, for that matter) resurrection of the alleged Son of that God, as is claimed in the NT?

[maddog]

What do you mean by "relevant"? or "valid"? YOU might think that finding no evidence of God is "sweeping and vague," but the focus of Christians on the resurrection of Jesus is a secondary claim, derivative of and dependent entirely upon the existence of the claimed God-being. If there is no God, then the claims for Jesus are meaningless.

The pattern of interaction here, as far as I can see, is still the same as it ever was. You have something already in mind as the "primary" Christian claim. You do not disclose this, however, but ask us to FIRST declare (and you limit us to only one) our objections to Christianity. Now you hint or suggest (or maybe you are saying outright) that our objections missed the boat and don't address Christianity at all -- they are irrelevant and invalid, or at least initially appear to you to be so. So you are defending already your preconceived idea, rather than being open-minded about what we have said and why we might have said it. Rather than saying to yourself (or disclosing to us) "Gee, I always thought from the Christian point of view that the central idea of Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps I am mistaken about that; maybe the reason it seems that way to me, as a Christian, is because I already accept the claims of the Bible w/r/t the existence of God, but for atheists, this underlying foundation which I have accepted seems to be logically prior to, and therefore even more basic and important, than questions about Jesus's resurrection," you instead appear to be saying, "You guys have it all wrong. You're talking about the wrong things, and therefore your objections are irrelevant and invalid."

Godless Wonder is correct. You don't have a pony. That matters far more than how fast your imaginary pony can run.

I reiterate, for myself, however, that MY primary objection to Christianity is a practical one: Christians act in the world to deny me and others the right to think and act differently from themselves, and, when this does not succeed, they want to punish me for being different. The politicization of evangelism, or the evangelization of religious politics, is being used to take away my civil liberties, or at least being bent to the effort of doing so. Christian intolerance of difference is affecting my daily life. They are not content to leave me alone, to live my life according to my conscience.

ETA: you have posted more since I began composing this. In answer to your apparent view that "insufficient evidence for God" is "too" vague or general to be "meaningful," I am left scratching my head. If I "don't see" anywhere in the universe "evidence" for the things that people tell me about God, how can I possibly be any more "specific" than that. How can I have something more than "vague" about what I simply do not see? You want me to name everything in the universe? I see stars. You see stars plus God. I don't see God, I only see stars. You want me to do that for EVERYTHING? I feel warm fuzzies inside me. You feel warm fuzzies plus God. I don't feel God. I just feel warm fuzzies. The "God" that you add on looks exactly like "nothing" to me. 1+0=1.

How can I describe more specifically what I cannot detect in any way? The ONLY things I know about "God" are what this God's adherents say about him/her/it. And I don't "know" these things at all. I listen to the statements, I look for, or try to apprehend what they say, but nothing that I perceive anywhere matches up to what they say.

Plus, it's just a little unfair, it seems to me, to demand that we limit ourselves to one and only one statement, which you then recast into language which you prefer, and then chastise us for being "vague."

As I said, so far, this thread doesn't look any different in terms of trying to communicate better, to not talk "past" one another, to be open-minded instead of automatically defensive, and so on. If you were really trying to mend fences and try a new approach to communication, how can you really say, But is the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God itself a meaningful claim?You would already know that OF COURSE this is a meaningful claim! I'm really surprised you can even ask this question. What do you think, that we are all liars? or what?

#1067

[Bible Humper]

Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Yes, just one to start with so make it your favorite. Put your best foot forward. This might require a bit of introspection on your part. Once I get a few good ones to choose from, I'll then ask the objectors a few questions in order to make sure everything is clear, relevant and non-trivial. After these matters are settled, we can perhaps move on to the question of merit. That said, fire when ready.

Hey, not a bad approach. Good luck.

*Chief* objection? Hmm. I'd say mine is the inability of theists to demonstrate a sound line of reasoning which leads from lack of belief to belief.

I mean, what exactly was the clincher that lead you to belief, originally? If it convinced you, then it should be reasonably convincing to us too.

Most theists became theists long before they were old enough to justify their belief via theology, but I believe that it is reasonable to assume that all deep-thinking theists have taken a good hard look at their religion at some point after the fact, and so had to find something that was a "clincher", justifying their continued belief.

So my chief objection is that all Christians should, theoretically, have one completely sound argument to present to everyone which goes right to the very heart of the question of God's existence since something was considered satisfactorily convincing to THEM in the first place.

[show_no_mercy]

The resurrection myth is heresay. The gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses, therefore any "facts" contained within them are second-hand information.

"I heard from this guy that Jesus was raised from the dead"(which is the bulk of the NT) - sounds more like gossip or rumors than a factual event.

[orac]

Let’s take a look at the first sample objection to Christianity: God is increasingly unnecessary as explanatory of natural phenomena.
Read up on the "god of the gaps" idea - there's entire libraries worth of writing explaining the flaws in this one.

But if you believe that "humans don't know everything about the physics therefore god exists" is the most compelling argument to support your claim that the christian god exists, feel free to say so, although I'ld love to know how it proves Jesus but disproves Allah.

(Curiously, the "God is increasingly unnecessary as explanatory of natural phenomena" argument is essentially stating that the ID argument "the world is too complicated to exist without a creator" doesn't qualify as sufficient evidence that there's any god at all. Once again, it all comes down to one question: do you have evidence that shows your claims to be correct?)


As I’ve said already, the question of God has bearing upon who, if anyone, is the Son of God but those objections offered in this vain were of the vague ‘insufficient evidence’ sort.
Who's being vague?

It's really amazingly simple: if you have evidence to support your claims, present it and let it speak for itself.

If you do not have evidence to support your claims, then we have no reason to assume you're any more accurate than the wiccans, hindus, muslims, and ufo nuts who make equally unsupported assertions.

You want us to believe you, They want us to believe them. So many claims - but not one of you can show your claim to be true.


Are such vagaries really relevant to the issue of the resurrection?
What ressurection? There's a whole bunch of people arguing that Jesus isn't real, but that there are real deities, and it was the Greeks who had it right all along. So far you have not given one single reason why I should take you any more seriously than them.

If you claim the ressurection as evidence of Jesus's divinity, then you must provide evidence that the ressurection occured. If you claim Jesus's divinity as proof of the ressurection, then you must at the very least provide evidence of his divinity (and if you can do that I'll let you away with the minor logical problem there.)

Christians make all sorts of claims about Jesus. The greeks have stories of divine miracles, a solid argument that the problem of evil doesn't affect their gods, and apparantly they have as much evidence to support the truth of those stories as you have to support your claim that Jesus even existed at all.

Doesn't that worry you at all?

Would you please answer my request? I want you to show me why I should believe what you say. I've been asking this one question for literally years. Please, show me one solid reason why I should believe you.


The hot point seems to be that if there is insufficient evidence for God, then the Christian’s claim that Jesus is the Son of God is cut off at the knees.
Well? Are you seriously arguing that Jesus can be the son of god even if god doesn't exist?

The good news, hopever, is that if you can show evidence to support your claim that the christian god is real, then that argument gets cut off at the knees before it gets started. If the evidence exists, then that argument fails completely. Again and again I state one simple thing: if you can provide evidence to support your claims, then all of these arguments fail. The fact that time and again you completely refuse to offer this evidence tells me that Jesus is exactly as likely to be real as Allah, Zeus, and Micky Mouse.

But I'm still here, with the same challenge: Prove me wrong. I double-dog-dare you to show the evidence that your god is real and that I'm completely and totally mistaken.

Sheesh, how much more clear do you want me to be? How much more clearly can I state my desire to have you give persuasive and compelling evidence showing that you have been completely correct all along?

What do you not understand here? I'm telling you how to sweep away all of the problems and issues people have - yet you persist in trying to dodge the question.


But is the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God itself a meaningful claim?
You tell us: is there sufficient evidence to support the claim that Zeus is the chief god? This is a yes or no question - either you believe there is evidence to support that claim, or you do not believe there is sufficient compelling evidence to support that claim. So, which is it? Do you, or do you not, accept Zeus as the chief of all the gods that exist?

[BlessNot]

Oh yeah, validity before soundness …


Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity.


If Christianity was treated as just another harmless myth, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. But since there are billions who believe the things it claims as truth, I must continue in my quest to create doubt in the minds of those who believe in that stuff.

That in a nutshell is about it.

:devil1:

[John A. Broussard]

Are we wasting our time here? If our objections to Christianity are clear, relevant and significant then presumably we are not wasting time by airing them out, again and again even.


I'm in complete agreement with you, and I have a solution to your problem. There's a button on your computer where you can shut off the screen and go somewhere else.

[fast]

My question to you as you begin this little journey, "what exactly do you hope to accomplish?" -- the real agenda, if you will.

Getting sticky in here.

Reflect and answer the question I put before you. Your honesty will bring some very surprising results.

[funinspace]

But what if our objections do not bear all of these qualities? To use an archery metaphor, what if we have mistaken sticks for arrows? What if we are not even properly aimed at our target? What if the target we are aiming at is the wrong one? What if we have not drawn the bowstring tightly enough to get us to the mark, even if it is at the right mark we aim? And so on. I wondered; does the typical unbeliever really reject Christianity, or something else? From the outset, I suspected that the unbeliever’s best objections, even those of his own choosing, would fall short in at least one of these key ways and so inevitably miss the mark. Though I had my suspicions, I wanted a cause for greater confidence so I put the problem and its outcome, however cryptically, in your own hands.
What if many large words are stacked together with what one thinks is the appearance of eloquent speech? What if it is in reality a bunch of meaningless balderdash?
But when I look at our sample set, I do not see many of this sort. And those I do see are vague and sweeping. Not specific, not clear at all. Not much use in those. Are these really the best we can come up with? If the unbeliever’s objections to Christianity are vague and irrelevant to what Christianity actually says, then does the unbeliever really reject Christianity, or something else? This is what I’m trying to get at. Let me know your thoughts on the matter.
Vague, sweeping, and unclear…yep, that about sums the above up. See below.
So instead, just think of this as something like a focus group in which you voluntarily opt in or out of.
So like one many atypical "focus group" volunteers, I can see it's already time to walk out the door. Last one out please turn out the lights...

[Angrillori]

Single biggest objection to Christianity?

Probably that some of its adherents start threads like this:


I'll do my best to answer any questions you have pertaining to the Christian worldview and the Biblical meta-narrative (i.e. grand explanation/story) and I can also comment on the various shortcomings and incongruities of the modern, naturalistic worldview in a pinch. I'll probably respond rather broadly to your questions at first though we can certainly drill down into the details as time and interest permits. With that said, fire away.


(Remember that (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117470)?)

Then, after abjectly failing to answer (or in most cases, failing even to make a good faith attempt to answer), said questions, the self-professed "christian" dissappears for a month, and comes back, posting roughly the exact same thing:


Here I'd like to propose that you, the unbeliever, first offer up your chief objection to Christianity. Yes, just one to start with so make it your favorite.

So, my biggest objection to christianity?

Self-professed christians.

Some issues that you might have forgotten from before: (They're often phrased in the form of questions, but I think you can divine the objection from them...)

Why is Yahweh so keen on the stench of burning flesh?

Do you seriously expect any reaction other than laughter when you tell people that the Lord of the Galaxy was carried around in a tent among some bronze-age goat herders?

What was Jesus's grandfather's name?

Why doesn't faith healing work?

How can Rabbi Jesus be of the line of David when scripture tells us that Joseph is the one person he absolutely certainly does *not* have DNA from?

Why is God a racist?

Why is God a sexist?

Why is God a homophobe?

Given any string S of text, how does one objectively determine whether S has the property of "being inspired by God"?

Given any interpretaion X of S, how does one adjudicate between X and X+n?

Do you realize how extremely obnoxious and arrogant it is for you to claim to explainig "The"(TM) Christian "worldview" when in fact there appear to be several thousands of them?

These last few bleed into the Flank Challenge, which, paraphrased, is "who, precisely, the fuck, are you that you think you know something that I don't"? The longer version in his own words is:

"What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than we should pay to the religious opinions
of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the kid who delivered my
pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally
available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I
read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to
church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes
your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s.

(I should perhaps note that I am not referring to “you� as in any
particular individual; I mean “anybody, anybody at all�.)"

I daresay that most atheists on IIDB are nonbelievers *because* they know more and have studied more and have prayed more about the nature and foundations of christianity than most christians have. I've read my McDowell. I've read my Lewis, my Strobel. I've read my Plantinga, Van Til, Zacharias, Graham, Johnson, Dembski, Robertson and Chick. I have studied the origins of the Kabbalah, the writings of Hermes Trismegistus, Aleister Crowley, and Israel Regardie. I have read extensively of the schools of the Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics. I have read much (but not all of) the Koran, the Bhagvad Gita, and the Tripitaka.

What makes you think you know something I don't?

Why aren't Yahweh's messengers more persuasive?

These were really good:

(1) If The Bible is ‘the Word of God’ (as opposed to being solely and to all exclusion a farrago — a collection of fantasy fiction created by men) why was its promulgation to humankind, across the globe, so limited? Such that it was confined in the history of its promulgation much like other contemporaneous literary works? Why did it take so many centuries for this so-called ‘Word of God’ to spread, that many peoples and whole civilizations never encountered the ‘Word of God’?

Why no ‘Word of God’ for China, India, South America, Australasia, South East Asia, Mongolia, Greenland, Iceland, Russia, Japan for so long?

This point is set out fully throughout this short Thread to which no theist ever provided an answer.

(2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to establish that Christianity is not the product of fantasy, fixation, fetish and mania

fantasy — an unrestrained product of the creative imagination (individual or group) in which the fantasist(s) has control of his imagined object or situation; a situation or idea not established in reality that is imagined by an individual or group, and which expresses certain desires, obsessions, yearnings, unmet needs, of its imaginers

fixation ― rigid mental attachment/obsession/preoccupation

fetish ― an object to which pathological attachment is formed; something regarded with irrational irreverence

(3) It is IMPOSSIBLE to establish that religion is not a merely a powerful cultural artefact that is sustained by its ability to satisfy humankind’s tendency to obsession and mania ― many many religions share in common, features such as: incantations, mantras, prayers - often involving repeated word patterns; repeated behaviours and physical movements (surely a key feature of religious ritual); and other compulsions of the mind or body (fasting, self-flagellation, speaking with tongues, the body movement of evangelical worship/fervor, the body movements and prayers of daily Muslim worship and of the Hajj)

(4) What is the answer to Alf’s Challenge on the incoherent and untrustworthy Bible? which, once again, no theist has answered (the list of questions at the end of the Post)

(5) How does a non-naturalistic worldview explain these features of Whales, dolphins & porpoises?

(6) Why is it no theist ever tackles Oolon Colluphid's challenge

(Imagine the pic of the series of human ancestral skulls here.)

Which of these are apes, and which are human and why?



Why are you a methodlogical naturalist in everything except your pet religious superstition?

The other day my friend made a hurtful remark, but I forgave him unconditionally. I did not require him to go to the pet store, buy a cat, and slit its throat, murmering magick incantations as its life's blood spilled on the altar. Why am I more moral than God?

Why do the deities in African pantheons take on progressively darker skin tones as one travels south among Africans with progressively darker skin tones?

Where is the solid firmament?

Why can't the christian community reach agreement on abortion, euthanasia, social security reform, gay marriage, or the war in iraq?

Why did Yahweh design an irreducibly complex immune system to protect us form the irreducibly complex bacteria he designed?

How can knowledge of any kind be possible in a non-naturalistic universe?

What, precisely, the fuck is an angel? What are they for? Why does God need a starship?

One hour a week in church is bloody boring enough. Won't an eternity of that shit get kind of boring after a while?


If I pray for my favorite hockey team and you pray for your favorite hockey team, how does Yahweh split the difference?

Who was the first to arrive at the tomb, how many people were with them, what did they find there, and what did they do next?

Do you suffer a woman to teach, or a witch to live?

Why was Farscape cancelled after only four seasons, while pap like American Idol goes on for years and years? How can this possibly bespeak a world governed by a just and loving god?

If the bible was only canonized several centuries after the religion started, then what is it for? The people who lived in the intervening years didn't seem to need it.

Why don't christians sell everything they have and live in communes, the way they are explicitly commanded?

Did Yahweh really need to create hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars just for the purposes of 1) maritime navigation and 2) astrology columinsts?

Why were there oceans of water before the Big Bang?

Yahweh knows my email address? How come people selling me V*i*ag4ra are better at reaching me than him?


When and why did christians' abilities to perform miracles stop?

Why is so much contemporary christian pop music so damn awful?

Is hell a place of darkness, or a place of fire? Is it "outer" or is it underground?

Do people choose hell, or is it merited by their nature? Is this merit based on lack of grace, lack of moral character, a genetic inheritance from Adam, or simply retribution for specific sins?

Why can't Yahweh just zap Lucifer into nonexistence?

Why does mendacity seem to go hand in hand with so much of contemporary christian apologetics?

Why didn't anyone except the gospel authors notice the whole invasion of zombies thing that happened in Jerusalem? Isn't that the sort of thing people write down?

Why can't I get a straight answer to any of these questions?

Why do we get only one lifetime before the judgment? Why can't Yawheh just keep us alive long enough to figure it out and become saved?

"Humans breed pigs for a purpose: making bacon. Does that make life meaningful for the pig?" -- S. Johannsen

Why are minds brain-dependent?

If we have deep ontological libertarian free will, doesn't this mean that arguments which rely on the premise "there are no uncaused causes" are necessarily spurious?

Why can ectoplasmic goo have free will, while neuronal goo can't?

What's the deal with back hair? Is this part of "being made in God's image"?

Why is the Lord of the Multiverse so pruriently obsessive about what people do with their genitals in the privacy of their own home that he sort of forgot to mention that slavery and apartheid were morally wrong?

Why do I hear so many crickets chirping?


Many theists claimed, in the wake of the recent space shuttle disaster, that this was God's punishment against the Great American Satan and the Zionist pigs. How would one go about evaluating such a claim for its truth or falsity?

How come Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes for a one-time party trick, but he doesn't give a rat's ass about the hundreds of millions of people slowy dying of hunger today?

Was there a global flood? Why can't christians agree on this?

If god is all powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?

What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

Why is a man who tosses his daughters out to be anally raped by a screaming mob an exemplar of moral righteousness instead of a son of a bitch?

How long was the captivity in Egypt?

Where's your messiah now, Flanders?

Is this list long enough yet?


1) Why would God sacrifice himself to himself to correct a situation he created himself?

2) According to Christian legend, Jesus died, spent about 36 hours in hell, then ascended and became (and has been ever since) in a state of perfection and bliss. How does this constitute an appropriate sacrifice?

3) God is completely benevolent. How can this be reconciled with, "Without evil, there can be no good?"

4) Are all things possible with God? If so, why is it impossible for a person to be saved unless he/she accepts Jesus as his/her savior?

5) Can God do any of the following: create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, think of a question too difficult for him to answer, determine the truth of the statement "God cannot determine the truth of this statement," arrange for an irresistable force to encounter an immovable object? If your answer that God cannot do one or more of those things because those are logically impossible situations, how do you reconcile God being a necessary being with God being contingent upon logic?

6) Say you go to Heaven. After you've been there long enough to do every possible activity in heaven, and learn everything there is to known in Heaven (which must inevitably happen sooner or later), what will you do? Will you become bored?

7) Is there marriage in Heaven? If so, how do you reconcile that with Christian doctrine? If not, what sort of relationship will you have with your spouse (I'm assuming you have one, or will have one) in heaven?

8) Can someone who knows his/her loved one is being eternally tortured in hell be truly happy in heaven?

9) Luke 6:30 states, "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (See also Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:35.) Will you give me $100? If so, please PM me to make payment arrangements. If not, where in the gospels does Jesus make an exception to that moral absolute for a greedy atheist?

10) Again, assuming you have a spouse -- do the two of you have sex? I ask this question not to be flippant, but because according to 1 Corinthians 7:29, the end of the world is at hand. Do you really want to be hiding the salami when Jesus returns?

11) Luke 14:26 states: "If any man come to me, and hate (miseo) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (The word "miseo" literally means "hate," and not something softer like "love less than me.") Does that sentiment describe you? If not, why not?

12) If God told you to murder a close family member, would you? (Assume that the veracity of the order is convincing to you, and that you are not mistaken.) If you respond that God would never give you such an order, then how can you claim that morals come from God?

13) If you had the ability to go back in time and rescue Jesus from the crucifixion, would you? (Assume that any such rescue attempt had at least a 50-50 chance of success.)

14) Where in the Bible, if anywhere, does it state that the Bible is the word of God?

15) Who made the decision to stop adding books to the Bible?

16) Do infants and mentally disabled people automatically go to heaven? If so, then how would you respond to someone who advocated killing them, so as to preclude any chance of their winding up in hell? How do you imagine he would respond to you?

17) There are millions of people who, due to geographical and cultural isolation, have never heard of God or Jesus. Do they go to hell for not knowing? If not, why tell them?

18) Have you read the entire Bible cover to cover, as I have?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can a theistic system of morality be truly objective when God gives contradictory moral commands? For instance, if God says not to commit murder (Exodus 20:13) and then later says not only that sometimes murder is okay, but actually requires you to do it(1 Samuel 15) how can you claim that morallity is objective?

QUESTION for Billy Graham is cool: 1) Do Jews who, on the basis of honest belief and sincere examination of the evidence, refuse to accept Jesus as their personal saviore go to hell and suffer torment forever?

2) If the answer to "1" is "yes," does that mean that my great-grandmother, who was murdered by the nazis at Auschwitz, but who died an uncoverted Jew, is now in hell?

3) If the answer to (2) is "yes," why would I accept your god as just?




How can a god as described by the Judeo-Christian Bible be infinite in all of his attributes and yet find me accountable for a condition (original sin) I have no control over?

In other words, if God is eternal and infinite then everything is already determined. How do you reconcile this?


why doesn't your god answer questions himself?


If God is omnicient, didn't he know that I wasn't going to believe in him without evidence. Didn't he choose to do this and then condemn me to hell? How can he condemn me if he already knew what my response would be when he created the universe?

Jesus died for my sins, right? If he did, why do I still have to believe in God, isn't that one of the sins that he died for? If not, why didn't he die for that sin too? Would that have required an extra day in hell?

Why is Christianity the correct religion when compared to other Abrahamic religions? If the answer is that Christianty came after Judaism, then why isn't Islam (which came after Christianity) correct. If the answer was that it was around first, then why isn't Judaism (which was around before Christianity) correct?

After all, the bible doesn't claim to be the inerrant word of God, but the Koran does. Why isn't the Koran required reading for Christians?

Well, I'm only up to page 4 out of 24, and I'm getting bored, so you'll have to take it from there....

[J-D]

Here's what I posted to your other thread four times and never even got an acknowledgement for: I have two questions.

The first is: As a matter of biographical fact, how did you personally arrive at the religious opinions you now hold?

The second is: What would you say about the following argument?

Monotheistic religious traditions, including Christianity, hold that there is a God who is at least powerful enough to be the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, at least wise enough to discern with certainty the consequences of actions, and at least good enough to wish his creatures well (let's call this the monotheistic position). If the monotheistic position were true, there would be no viruses inflicting horrendous pain, permanent disability, or death on animals both human and non-human. But there are such viruses, so the monotheistic position must be false.

Lemmas:

It is inconsistent with the monotheistic position's view of God's power to suppose that the viruses were created by some power that God could not control or prevent.

It is inconsistent with the monotheistic position's view of God's wisdom to suppose that the viruses were an unintended or unforeseen consequence of God's actions.

It is inconsistent with the monotheistic position's view of God's goodness to suppose that God would deliberately create the viruses to inflict such suffering on his other creatures.

[Rational BAC]

I've conducted an entirely fictional and non-scientific survey that pegs the percentage of former theists at around 80%.

At least, that's kinda what it seems like. Weirdos like you and I are the exception to the rule, Moosie :)

I would be interested in knowing how many of those 80% former theists who became atheists were fundy Christians.

I would guess most of them.

Fundamentalist Christianity is like a stack of cards which can so very easily come tumbling down. ------and where does the fundy go from there? ------to the complete opposite==atheism.

There is no fury like a woman scorned. Fundies who become atheists are like the woman scorned.

[Lemur]

I would be interested in knowing how many of those 80% former theists who became atheists were fundy Christians.

I would guess most of them.

Fundamentalist Christianity is like a stack of cards which can so very easily come tumbling down. ------and where does the fundy go from there? ------to the complete opposite==atheism.

I was fundamentalist and I will just admit that I don't understand the liberal Christian mindset. I never have. It's something like "The flood, Adam and Eve, the Egyptian plagues are all ridiculous so they can't be literally true, but the omnimax God incarnating, submitting to death, rising from the dead and saving us from the propensity to sin that he himself created us with? Sounds good to me!"

[Godless Wonder]

I would be interested in knowing how many of those 80% former theists who became atheists were fundy Christians.

I would guess most of them.

Fundamentalist Christianity is like a stack of cards which can so very easily come tumbling down. ------and where does the fundy go from there? ------to the complete opposite==atheism.

There is no fury like a woman scorned. Fundies who become atheists are like the woman scorned.
Tearing down another's beliefs does not validate one's own.

[Gunnaheave]

BGIC,

Let's say that I have no objection to Christianity, none whatsoever. I have no objection to it, and I remain a non Christian.

What then?

[John A. Broussard]

I like the bumper sticker that reads:
I DON'T OBJECT TO GOD. ITS HIS FAN CLUB THAT I CAN'T STAND

[Cross Examiner]

Big words? Eloquence? You've got me all wrong, funinspace. In light of the pushback I got in other threads for flagrant use of philosophical and theological jargon, I decided to use the simplest language I could manage. So here I take a page from the Lewis playbook and have purposely used as plain a style and as many small, single or double syllable words as I know how. But if you're sure I'm still laying it on too thick, let me know. For that, though, details are nice. In any case, thanks for looking out for me.

Oh, and if you're still around and the lights are still on, maybe I can get your advice on another personal matter. You seem to like giving advice. I'm thinking about changing my name. Not because I got into it with Billy, and not because he stopped being cool, but because the name has outlived its purpose. When I first came here, I simply wanted something to provoke controversy. To 'grab some eyeballs', as they say on Madison Avenue. I find I no longer need this name as the barest reading of my words seems to do that trick well enough. But what to change it to? I want something that says 'hey, let's have some fun with this thing'. Something the kids will like. Kids seem to like Napoleon Dynamite. How about I change my name to Uncle Rico, or something equally snazzy? I too can throw a football a good quarter mile. I also happen to be really jazzed about 1984. That alone practically makes us soul mates (except that I'm a also dude and not into that). What say we get some feedback on this puppy?

[fast]

Billy Graham is cool,

You have wasted our time.

Good bye

lights off

[Cross Examiner]

On a more serious note, I think you've hit the nail on the head, Rational BAC. American fundamentalism needlessly paints believers into a precarious corner. And this I see as a serious break with history. Did the early church put all its eggs in every basket, or just one? I think if the NY Times Religion section came out tomorrow with an exposé that somehow proved John the Beloved and John the Evangelist were two different men, half the red states would turn blue over night, if you get my meaning. Now, I'm no heretic or heterodox. I fall somewhere along the evangelical spectrum and I probably vote the same way as the guy with the oversized pickup. But I also feel as much at home at Catholic Mass as I do at a seminar on Van Tillian Calvinism. This is because I try to make the first thing the first thing. Major on the majors, minor on the minors and all that.

So the question for the modern church is simply this: what did the early church center itself on? Well, what did St. Paul deliver to the believers at Corinth that was of first importance? Was it the resurrected Christ that appeared to him on the road to Damascus or the five points of TULIP in pamphlet-form? Would St. Peter's death at the hands of Nero become meaningless if we found out tomorrow that the preterist view of The Apocalypse was right all along? Of course not. If Peter did indeed bodily embrace his friend, Rabbi and Lord mere days after Good Friday then Peter's own martyrdom is of infinite worth, literally. I love theology and philosophy, I do, but these must know their place. Matters of history must always precede matters of doctrine in terms of importance because it is the latter that rests upon the former, and not the other way around.

All this simply means that even my most bleeding heart ecumenical moments know a hard and fast boundary: the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm just as likely to decline an invitation from JD Crossan and Bishop Spong to go skiing in the Berkshires as I am to pass on the Star Trek convention with Dr. Dawkins or skip sailing with Daniel Dennett. I mean no disrespect to these famous men, only that I part ways sharply on this seminal issue. So if the atheist wants to quibble over the 'problem' of evil, let him. Let him have it even. Even so, so what? I love this question. Even if, for argument's sake, the believer grants that in light of suffering, he must drop, say, the perfect vision of God, so what? So lets suppose God simply did not see the whole thing going this badly from the outset, what would this have to do with whether or not Jesus rose from the dead? You former Christians, did you let go because someone convinced you that He did not rise, or because of something else altogether? Or, more to the point perhaps, was this never the centerpiece of your faith to begin with?

[Howard]

You former Christians, did you let go because someone convinced you that He did not rise, or because of something else altogether? Or, more to the point perhaps, was this never the centerpiece of your faith to begin with?You have the cart before the horse, or if you prefer, the Christ before the cross. If people stop believing in God then not believing the resurrection is a given.

[Cross Examiner]

You have the cart before the horse, or if you prefer, the Christ before the cross. If people stop believing in God then not believing the resurrection is a given.
Is the question of God the horse and the question of the resurrection the cart, as you say? I suggested earlier that I thought the question of God logically prior the question of the resurrection. But on further reflection, I no longer think this necessarily so. One need not start with the question of God before going on to the resurrection if the question of the resurrection bears upon the question of God. And I think it does just this. Suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus rose; does this not work as a forceful argument for the existence of God? Perhaps I'm not seeing clearly but I think it does.

You seem to suggest an incompatibility: can a man be unsure about or even doubt the existence of God yet also believe Jesus rose? If he finds the case for the resurrection compelling can he not leverage that confidence for a measure of belief in God? I don't see why not. Now, I'll grant without argument that if a man denies the existence of God, he cannot reasonably also believe Jesus rose. That is, I'd agree that denial of God and denial of resurrection go hand in hand. But then I'd care to take issue with such a strong stance on the question of God. Indeed, the denier in this case must prove a universal negative in order to have a leg to stand on. A daunting task no doubt. Particularly so if he is an epistemic skeptic or relativist, which I'd wager to be more than likely.

[Godless Wonder]

And I think it does just this. Suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus rose; does this not work as a forceful argument for the existence of God? Perhaps I'm not seeing clearly but I think it does.

It does not. You can't see this?