The War Against Christianity

[DARK LORD XENU]

Because scientific discovery and observation cannot find him to put him in the equation.

If a god could be there, scientific and other rational observers would be able to detect it.
That, is the actual reality we face.

It is not the opposition to your god that is the main thrust of any scientific discovery.

It is the absence of the gods influence or workings to manifest itself to the scientific community that is the real issue..

Bravo BIOMORPH that is the best argument I have been given for atheism,
I suggest everyone else on this thread take a look at BIOMORPHS answer if you have someone like my self ask the question I did give an answer like this.

Even though I still believe in God you still opened my eyes to why atheists do not believe in religion.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

I was stationed with a guy who I thought was borderline insane. He used to be something of a punk as a kid, apparently, but was "reborn" or whatever it is they call it. He'd read from the bible, in the barracks, LOUDLY. We'd all ignore him. It was kind of annoying, but nothing worth breaking a sweat, however. That ended the day he cornered me in the stairwell, and told me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't go with him to his church, RIGHT THAT MINUTE, that I would go to hell. Long story short, he went alone after I offered to sanctify his jaw for him. I got the feeling this guy had been voted "Most likely to get sucked up into a cult" in high school.

Did you end up sancifying that guys jaw?

 

[Mobyseven]

You're funny. Let me try to make you understand how science works, in contrast to dogma. For a cartographical project, the flat earth hypothesis might be assumed. This is justified, because it's an excellent approximation over the relevant length scale. In other words, the flat earth hypothesis is justified by pragmatism here, it's correct. That's what it's all about: pragmatism, not dogma. You got it? The fact that the flat earth hypothesis is an insufficient model for calculating the shortest flight path between Berlin and New York, has no impact on our mapping project. For the flight, a spherical or even an ellipsoidal approximation of the earth's shape has to be used. It might even be this shape has been measured with high accuracy by satellites. Nevertheless, the results of those measurements will probably not be used by our local cartographers, the flat earth approximation might be simply more accurate than measurement.

Dear Vishnu that was the most inane drivel I've read in a while.

The flat earth hypothesis is not justified. This is because the earth has pretty conclusively been shown to be an oblate spheroid, and not flat.

The fact that the earth appears to be flat from our perspective, and in some situations it may be treated that way for practical reasons does not mean that anybody is adopting the flat earth hypothesis. It means recognising that over short distances the curvature of the earth is negligible, and does not need to be adjusted for - thereby using a 'flat earth' as a practical short distance model of the actual earth.

Practical adoption of a standard does not make an unreasonable and conclusively discredited hypothesis any more valid or reasonable. Shut up with your nonsensical ramblings about pragmatism and dogma.

 

[Herzblut]

Dear Vishnu that was the most inane drivel I've read in a while.

The flat earth hypothesis is not justified. This is because the earth has pretty conclusively been shown to be an oblate spheroid, and not flat.

Wrong. The earth's shape is similar to an "oblate spheroid", the latter being hence an approximation.

You don't get it, better stay with your dogmas.

 

[kmortis]

Wrong. The earth's shape is similar to an "oblate spheroid", the latter being hence an approximation.

You don't get it, better stay with your dogmas.

And "oblate spheroid" is much closer to the shape than "flat".

I got it, you made the point poorly.

 

[Hawk one]

And "oblate spheroid" is much closer to the shape than "flat".

I got it, you made the point poorly.

Heck, simply "sphere" would be much closer. Yes, it's not a perfect sphere, but it's close enough (the obloid difference being about 0.3% as far as I can recall) that if you shrunk it to the size of a snooker/pool ball, it would actually pass international tournament standards.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig I was using the atomic bomb as an example of something bad.

Yes. I understand that was your purpose. I responded by saying that the atomic bomb is not something bad. It makes a very poor example when looking for something to equate to the Spanish Inquisition.

Also nuclear power can cause more pollution in just getting the uranium out of the ground than what it is worth from my understanding.

I did not know that. Will you provide a reliable citation for that assertion?

Also I see no one has had a grand insight that has given them an argument to convince me that religion is bad and atheism is good.

Probably because we did not know that you were asking that question. The topic under discussion was why is Genesis not a valid source for understanding the universe, its origins, and life. That question seems very well answered to me.

If you want to talk about why some think religion is bad or about why some religions are bad, then let's do it.

I think Christianity is bad because it is predicated on a series of absurdities. If you saw a mother on the edge of a cliff yelling at her children : "Because you are very, very wicked, I will now have to prove my love for you by killing myself," you might contact a police officer or try to get the woman away from the cliff because saying those things is a sign of mental unbalance. But when the God of the Bible says, "Because you are very, very wicked, I have to kill myself to show you how much I love you," people nod knowingly and say, "yes, we are very, very wicked. Thank you for killing yourself for us."

 

[Herzblut]

And "oblate spheroid" is much closer to the shape than "flat".

How "much closer" over which distance? Your statement is meaningless unless you specify the distance over which you compare the two models. If you indent to say that the flat model is much worse over a distance of, say, 100km you have to face the fact that you're simply wrong. In fact, the flat model is equally close to reality here and preferred based on its simplicity. You know, Occam and so forth.

 

[Ladewig]

I've been reflecting on my previous post and want to temper my criticism. Christianity has done a lot of good by staffing shelters for homeless people and opening charity hospitals. I would find it difficult to precisely compare the beneficial acts done some many Christians to the detriments done by many Christians (persecution of gays and people of different faiths).

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've been reflecting on my previous post and want to temper my criticism. Christianity has done a lot of good by staffing shelters for homeless people and opening charity hospitals. I would find it difficult to precisely compare the beneficial acts done some many Christians to the detriments done by many Christians (persecution of gays and people of different faiths).

While the abuses of religion are known by all posting here and I could go on forever about the abuses of ostensibly charitable* functions of religion, it must be admitted that all religious entities have provided some good at some point (not just Christians). The Salvation Army, Jewish hospitals, Red Crescent, etc.

Interestingly enough I heard a reply of the Lars Larson radio talk show the other night where he ambushed interviewed Margaret Downey** and he asked her why there weren't atheist charitable organizations. Her response was the same as mine - numbers and dollars. Atheists are still a minority and activist atheists are even more so. We can donate our money to a number of religious or not charities like the Salvation Army or local soup kitchens (or the ASPCA) which have the force of numbers rather than trying to start our own.

* My biggest current problem here is Catholic hospitals not providing birth control or abortion counseling (I can understand them not providing abortions).
** I disagree with a lot of her positions, but man is she hot.

 

[biomorph]

Bravo BIOMORPH that is the best argument I have been given for atheism,
I suggest everyone else on this thread take a look at BIOMORPHS answer if you have someone like my self ask the question I did give an answer like this.

Even though I still believe in God you still opened my eyes to why atheists do not believe in religion.

thanks, you're welcome.....anytime..

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

While the abuses of religion are known by all posting here and I could go on forever about the abuses of ostensibly charitable* functions of religion, it must be admitted that all religious entities have provided some good at some point (not just Christians). The Salvation Army, Jewish hospitals, Red Crescent, etc.

(bolding mine)

I don't think the Red Crescent views itself as a religious organization. In fact, the cross, crescent and shield of david are interchangeable emblems used by the various Red Cross organizations depending on where in the world they operate.

If these symbols bother you, Doctors without Borders is a break-off organization, that also has a different philosophy with regards to speaking out against war crimes.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

 

[kmortis]

How "much closer" over which distance? Your statement is meaningless unless you specify the distance over which you compare the two models. If you indent to say that the flat model is much worse over a distance of, say, 100km you have to face the fact that you're simply wrong. In fact, the flat model is equally close to reality here and preferred based on its simplicity. You know, Occam and so forth.

Um, no. The flat model is not an accurate description of the shape of the earth. Yes, it can appear flat when you're away from the coast or not at sea. It however, doesn't come close close in any aspect of that word to describing the true shape. To argue otherwise is just pedantry. Seriously, the ancient Greeks figured this one out without the aid of telescopes.

Since you seem to be making an argument from integration, yes, over very small distances (dx) it appears relatively flat, barring mountains and pits. However, when it's shape is taken as a whole, rather than just a segment, it's not flat by any approximation.

The simplest explanation is that humans perspective is faulty and the Earth is a lot bigger than we are, so we can't normally see the whole thing. That's Occam's razor, not that a true approximation of the shape of the Earth is flat. Now, move on to something else. Your point has been made, now you're looking silly.

 

[biomorph]

so, Ryan O'Dine...

How do you deal with these types of situation?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102987

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

so, Ryan O'Dine...

How do you deal with these types of situation?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102987

Thanks for directing me to that fascinating thread. I thought I’d escaped this one with my dignity intact, but it never happens.

So. Religion certainly presents challenges, including the problems our friend Digital Shadow faces. I, myself, have fundamentalists in my extended family who are the principle source of discord in an otherwise unusually harmonious tribe. Notably, they don’t abide by the live and let live contract, expecting more tolerance than they give in return. I personally get along with them and value our debates, but in conflicts with other family members I never take their side. They’ve violated the contract.

Such is often the case with fundamentalists. Many, by their very nature, live outside the contract and should be treated as such. Here’s the thing, though. Not every religious person is a fundamentalist, or in any way coercive.

Which brings us to an important question: what’s the alternative to tolerance? It’s nice to say society would be better off without religion, but how do we get there? This is an aspect I haven’t addressed, but it’s in the foreground.

So let me turn the tables a little, my friend. How would you get rid of religion? Please be specific.

If you have no method which wouldn’t cause more harm to society than good, or you have no method at all, then I'd be left wondering how you can criticize tolerance.

 

[Mister Earl]

Did you end up sancifying that guys jaw?

No, didn't need to. I think my offer got my point across that I didn't wish to be sucked into his cult.

 

[biomorph]

Thanks for directing me to that fascinating thread. I thought I’d escaped this one with my dignity intact, but it never happens.

You have conducted your side of the debate with dignity.

As far as I'm concerned your dignity is intact, though your position as regards the topic might be a bit ruffled, but thats ok.

So. Religion certainly presents challenges, including the problems our friend Digital Shadow faces. I, myself, have fundamentalists in my extended family who are the principle source of discord in an otherwise unusually harmonious tribe. Notably, they don’t abide by the live and let live contract, expecting more tolerance than they give in return. I personally get along with them and value our debates, but in conflicts with other family members I never take their side. They’ve violated the contract.

I find that a normal situation, to a greater or lesser degree.
Like I've attempted to point out, it's an expansionist ideology. I think that makes it difficult to deal with on a neutral l&ll basis. They just do not see it that way.

Even the most mild convert has somewhere in there, the concept that equates tolerance by non converts with "room to expand". It is part of the misson.

They may not practice it in a manner that is "fundamentalist", but starting with their nearest and dearest they'll try. that I can assure you is very very common. how do you think they survive?

Such is often the case with fundamentalists. Many, by their very nature, live outside the contract and should be treated as such. Here’s the thing, though. Not every religious person is a fundamentalist, or in any way coercive.

see above

Which brings us to an important question: what’s the alternative to tolerance? It’s nice to say society would be better off without religion, but how do we get there? This is an aspect I haven’t addressed, but it’s in the foreground.

So let me turn the tables a little, my friend. How would you get rid of religion? Please be specific.

If you have no method which wouldn’t cause more harm to society than good, or you have no method at all, then I'd be left wondering how you can criticize tolerance.

See
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3289108&postcount=169
for the most radical of the measures i thought, in part, might work.

I am not suggesting all or any are fixed, essential, or any thing.
Just pure opinion. some agree, some do not. that's fine by me.

further on there is a post I did on modifying the 1st Amendment as well.

That raised a few comments, i can tell you, and i don't even live in the states.

regards and glad to see you are still kicking.

ps, I was raised moderate baptist, so I have some experience with xtianity. Only my own though.....

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

You have conducted your side of the debate with dignity.

As far as I'm concerned your dignity is intact, though your position as regards the topic might be a bit ruffled, but thats ok.

Give me time. Losing dignity is a gift. Fortunately, there are smilies for every occasion:

I find that a normal situation, to a greater or lesser degree.
Like I've attempted to point out, it's an expansionist ideology. I think that makes it difficult to deal with on a neutral l&ll basis. They just do not see it that way.

Even the most mild convert has somewhere in there, the concept that equates tolerance by non converts with "room to expand". It is part of the misson.

They may not practice it in a manner that is "fundamentalist", but starting with their nearest and dearest they'll try. that I can assure you is very very common. how do you think they survive?

I guess I’m not clear where the harm is in letting them argue their point. What is it about religious ideology that deserves different treatment from, say, political ideology? (I keep bringing up politics for a reason. It seems to me they’re functionally equivalent here. There are hateful, aggressive, viral politics, too. Why single out religion? (Am I a broken record? If you've answered this already, could you humor me again?))

See
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3289108&postcount=169
for the most radical of the measures i thought, in part, might work.

I am not suggesting all or any are fixed, essential, or any thing.
Just pure opinion. some agree, some do not. that's fine by me.

further on there is a post I did on modifying the 1st Amendment as well.

That raised a few comments, i can tell you, and i don't even live in the states.

I’m impressed. Really. Most people rant about the dangers of religion but offer no solutions. My hat is off.

I think this isn’t really the place to argue your specifics, but I’ll make some general comments. Here goes. Once you’ve done away with all the religious ideas you don’t like, what’s next? There are many ideas which straddle the religious domain -- new age and other philosophies, the self-help movement, even general questions of cultural identity (try asking the definition of “Jew”), and then of course -- once again -- politics.

I realize I’m on the verge of a “slippery slope” argument, but that’s not really what I’m getting at. The problem comes in delineating the boundaries of religion. Who gets to decide?

In even more general terms, it comes down to a choice between free speech and no religion. Your list is basically a targeted assault on free speech. For my own part, I’d much rather err on the side of too much free speech. I'm even willing to pay the price of coexisting with religion.

How’s that for ruffled?

 

[biomorph]

How’s that for ruffled?

not bad at all, however i think this thread is possibly loosing the will to live, so I'm abandoning ship here.

you make some good points though, and provoked some thought on my part.

The politics = religion thing i sort of get, but my brain is pretty compartmentalised as regards dealing with one or the other not both, but i see where you are going with that concept.


As for the harm, well I think you'll find plenty of examples around you and at this forum, enough to keep us both happy thats for sure.

I'm sure you'll find me posting more anti religious stuff here, seems to be a favorite pastime of mine.

Keep thinking,

regards

BM

 

[Tanstaafl]

I have long thought that religion is just a subset of politics.

Seems to me that telling other people what they should think and how they should live their lives is political at the core.