Is God evil?

[Relic]

No, I'm saying you've made an entirely unsupported connection between inventions in the 17th and 18th century and Christianity.

Christianity was prominent in 17th and 18th centuries; so were inventions. Where we disagree is that I believe this is not coincidence, you believe it is. If you don't believe in God, you must believe that a great many things are the result of simple "coicidence"; like us being here, for instance.

 

[Relic]

Ahhh, I see that you're not interested in an actual, honest discussion. You twist, cherry-pick your believers, make ad-hom attacks, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you move the goal-posts. Thanks for playing, but I'm not interested in a discussion where one has to lie, obfuscate, and jump through mental hoops to make his point.

Your contention lacks merit, your arguments lack support. Good luck!

If a scientist contradicts the laws of logic, is he a scientist?
In the same way, if a Christian contradicts the laws of his own religion, he is not a Christian as Jesus describes.

I've made this statement many times already, even before you gave me the list, and it's one of simple logic. The Bible itself makes this statement about the Christian as opposed to the man who falsely claims to be one.

Yet now that your argument's defeated by what I had already claimed in the first place, all you can do is say that I twisted and cherry-picked and that you're now so outraged at this so-called irrationality that you will toss the debate away and run off?

And where have I lied or jumped through mental hoops? If I contradicted the laws of the Bible once, tell me where. If I contradicted myself even once, show me the quote. But you haven't done these things- why? Because you *can't* do these things- why? The only explanation is because the lies and mental hoops you accuse me of don't exist, otherwise you would have backed up your claim with logical proof.

I might add that you've refused to answer not one, but *all* of my points and questions that I posed to you in my last post. However, you fail to give these things any reference whatsoever. Interesting.

Taking all of this into consideration, what I think you're really doing here is forfeiting, but using fancy words to hide that fact- otherwise, as I said, you would have provided evidence to prove my claim wrong, and you would have also answered my points as I answered yours, or at the very least shown where my points were contradictory, unfair, or whatever you accused them of being. But if you're going to be this way, then I won't stop you, ROFL.

Please, go right ahead. I think this is another win for the Christian side of the debate.

 

[Relic]

Evidence for the above claims?

If we're debating about whether God is evil, we must assume, first, that God is real. If we assume God is real, then we make the same assumption about his actions, including dying for our sins, healing the sick etc.
Only then can we debate whether he is evil or not.

Now, I've given you some examples of Gods deeds. Either He is good or evil. Which is it?

 

[Relic]

A form that does not have to be grounded in reality. If you can analyse it by just looking at it and deciding for yourself, there's no common point to debate.

Not necessarily. Even so, I've already said this isn't helping the debate as to whether God is evil or not progress. If you have to drag the entire debate back to analyzing Bible verses by observing them, and making a topic of it, then I'm dubious.

But it's okay- I'm sure you have no need to do that. I'm confident that you have some argument to place against the points I've given that help move the debate *forward*; the examples I gave of the actions of the Jesus.

The only reference I've seen you provide for Christians opposing the Nazis was 1936. Is this your earliest reference? Because they'd been opposed for years before that.

I could look up other references and give them to you, but once again the only thing you're saying here is that unless I give more examples, the points already given will not be achknowledged. And once again, if I gave you more examples of Christians who have performed good deeds, you would make the same statement I've heard here already; that this is insufficient to proove whether or not God is evil.

So I'm moving the debate forward; if you're so determined to prove whether or not God is evil, then the greatest vulnerability is Jesus Christ. After all, he's the cornerstone and embodiment of the entire Christian religion, and the one ultimate representative of God in flesh-form.

 

[Relic]

Here's the site that was mentioned earlier. The lists are based on fairly superficial interpretations of the verses, but if you're going to take it at face value that the Israelites were morally superior to the other tribes just because the bible says so, then you also have to take these verses at face value.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

All of these quotes in your examples say basically the same thing: God judged the world, therefore He's evil. God punished someone for doing wrong, therefore He's evil.
But actually these examples avoid the reasons that God Himself stated for making the judgements He did.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that site does:

In the Bible God might say something like: "I have heard the cries of the persecuted that rent the skies from this particular city; I have heard those who moan in agony as they are violated by the sexually immoral; the blood of the murdered ones cries out to me, and all of this pain and tyranny can no longer be ignored: now I will rise from my Throne, and now I will answer them; the evildoers can no longer be forgiven, but they will be delivered to destruction, and those who were crushed I will save from the hand of the wicked."

The site you mentioned takes an example like this, tears out all of what God says until a specific verse is left (eg. God destroyed this particular city) and then says "Look everyone! God destroyed this city because there were a few men there who were gay! He's obviously an evil tyrant!" leaving out the fact that the said gay men were rapists.

Shall I say it again? Your site uses blatant selection of detail, which is then examined by so-called skeptics who are in fact biassed cynics, who then reach a conclusion based on a single cherry-picked verse and their own bias, and finally cry out: "look everyone! Come and see what the evil, tyrant God did! He's clearly evil for killing these people! --Not that we believe in Him of course! To do so would be completely irrational! Anyone who believes in Him are gun-crazed lunatics to our society who want to go around murdering homosexuals! See? This verse proves it! So there! Scientifically proven fact!"

If this is your evidence, Silentknight, I'm offended by it- not so much because it reufully scorns and insults everything that is my culture and religion, but more because the absolute irrationality that forms what you call evidence is so ridiculous, my dignity is lessened by having to answer to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It's a fallacy of equivocation and question begging. If one is going to redefine Christians as people who only do good in the name of Christianity, then there must not be very many Christians in the world. In fact, the number of true Christians would be the number of people who agree with the arguer's core convictions. How convenient.

*Redefine* Christians? The Bible itself describes what a Christian should be, and in all my words here I've not once strayed from that description. If you can point out a quote of mine that implies otherwise, please do so.

Really? Earlier you said this:

Yes. The Bible had laws regarding slavery in the Old Testament that the Jews were to abide by. The difference between the actions of the Jews and the whites are that:

The Jews were specifically chosen by God to conquer, even shown miracles, and having the words of a true Man of God on their side. The slaves they took in war were spared from death in war, and theoretically could have also learned the more righteous ways of the Jews of the time, thus resulting in eternal Salvation. The other kind of "slave" in the times were akin to what today we would call butlers or maids. In addition, the rights of slaves were clearly defined, as were the punishment of masters for mistreating those under their authority.

The whites, on the other hand, had none of these things; no miracles, no prophet, no confirmation of God's will in any degree: however much some may have claimed to, historically, they did *not*. Instead, they had their own arrogance, and thus went against God's will and had no right to take black slaves. The Bible condemns murder of the innocent, rape, and so on. But the whites broke all of these laws. They contradicted God not only in Biblical laws regarding slavery, but also in that they had no right to take slaves in the first place, unlike the Jews- but even the Jews were placed under strict laws regarding the rights of slaves.

So by your own admission, slave owners were indeed following instructions that were included in one part of the bible. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 22, written centuries before the NT, are full of instructions and laws regarding slavery and sex slavery. It no more makes slavery moral if everyone else did it than two wrongs make a right. As for the teachings regarding slave rights, in Exodus 21:20-21 the bible says it's okay to slowly beat your slaves to death, as long as they survive for a couple of days, because after all, they're your money. A daughter being sold into sex slavery had NO rights and no say in the matter, yet there are proscriptions for this throughout the OT.

I never said everyone did it, therefore it's right. I'm saying what the Jews did was right as opposed to what the other nations did, which was wrong. Although there are instances in Biblical history in which sexual relations occure to continue a man's family line, there is no verse saying that a woman was forced to lie with a man by God's law, but we do have verses regarding God's law that condemn rape. From this we can grasp that women had rights too.

Please read up on the fallacy I explained above.

Explained already. The definition of Christian is in accordance with Biblical law, not in accordance with theories of definition.

For the record, Dr. King got his idea of non-violence from Mohandas Gandhi. Where did Gandhi get this principle (Ahimsa) from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Nonviolence
It turns out it's a central tenet of religions that originated in ancient India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

You've provided an example here of who Gandhi was, but *no* example of how King was in any degree influenced by him. Interesting.

I never denied that good has been done in the name of Christianity. I was specifically addressing your claim that nothing evil has ever been done in the name of Christianity, which is false. RobRoy posted a list of religious atrocities all claiming Christianity as their driving principle.

I never said no evil has been done in the name of Christianity, but I *did* say that those who do evil in that name are staining its reputation, and contradicting themselves in using such a name.

No, I was pointing out how if you can give credit to Christianity for being the first to stand up to Nazi Germany by cherry-picking examples, it would be even easier for me to draw a connection between Christian fundamentalism and the Holocaust. Look at the quotes from Mein Kampf and tell me Hitler didn't draw many of his beliefs from Christian fundamentalism.

Hitler was a clever politician. He knew that Christianity was a positive image, and claiming that he was "chosen by God" might win him those votes. But when you remember about the way he spoke about evolution *after* he had those votes, and how many Christian/Catholic slaves he took, etc. this statement rings hollow.

This is what you get when you pull the fallacy of equivocation with the definition of a Christian. If Christianity was the "first to stand up to Nazi Germany" then you must also accept the actions of the Church and Nazi Germany itself as representative of Christianity. The Church may have officially denounced the Third Reich, but it also adopted a non-interventionist policy stemming from fear, going so far as to open up its genealogical records to the Nazis and to declare (in agreement with Hitler) that Jews could not be redeemed in this lifetime.

I suppose you're talking about two different churches? And is that latter even a Christian church? Do you have dates and names to specify and confirm this? And, most importantly, does what this church of yours say work in harmony with Bible verses? If we're debating whether God is evil, then evil actions done in the name of God must be in perfect accordance with God's own teachings, as were the words spoken by the Christians who *opposed* Hitler: they had verses to back their claims.

Also, your claim about evolution is idiotic. Hitler was a creationist who believed in fixed kinds, special creation by God and the non-evolution of humans, and the story of the Garden of Eden.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
His beliefs on racial / tribal superiority, of being chosen by God, and of acting on God's behalf to perform a task on this Earth came from scripture, twisted or otherwise.

I looked at your link. The first line I read was "While Hitler uses the word "evolution"…”
In other words your own link tries to explain away what Hitler "really" meant when he spoke about evolution, but in doing so admits that he certainly had somethnig to say on the topic. If so, why doesn't it give any quotes that would prove his opinion on the subject of evolution?

Do I detect a veiled ad baculum fallacy here, that you believe God will get angry and start punishing people if skeptics keep saying offensive things about him? If that's the case, then you could at least be honest about your beliefs. Though perhaps it's not God who is offended. Perhaps the ones being offended are the believers who conflate their own petty sensitivities with the will of God.

Your excuses don't suffice.

No, reread the argument you were responding to with that strawman. Nobody was advocating going out on a shooting spree to eliminate evil, except you.

I suggest *you* reread the argument and you will find otherwise.

I don't know how you could miss this, but the belief in God is a strong influence in the lives of many people around the world, and has the potential to cause good or great harm, regardless of whether you think these people are "true Christians" or not. Yes, these effects extend even to people who don't believe in God. Most politicians, lawmakers, and people who make important decisions in modern society believe in God, for better or worse. Tell me this doesn't affect the lives of nonbelievers.

If this is true, then the debate should be about whether belief in God is rational, not whether God is evil, or at least about what God truly teaches. So as I said before; you contradicted yourself.

No one who treats God with such scorn and hatred could possibly not believe in Him, since their own mad hate reveals that deep down, to some degree, they *do* believe in Him, if only to resent Him.

 

[Relic]

Hamelekim, Edge... good work.

This is interesting though. No one has yet answered my points about the actions of Christ...

If so many here are so desperate to prove that God is an evil tyrant, wouldn't the most vulnerable point to attack Him be Christ Jesus? After all, He is the very embodiment of the Christian religion and the Christian God.

I'll challenge you again: point out to me a single action done by Christ, a single word spoken, that is undeniably *evil* in any degree, and you will win this debate. Prove Christ wrong, who died for the sins of mankind, even atheists and homosexuals, prove Him wrong who healed and saved! If you can, you win, but if can't defeat the Cornerstone, you lose.

 

[RobRoy]

Yet now that your argument's defeated by what I had already claimed in the first place, all you can do is say that I twisted and cherry-picked and that you're now so outraged at this so-called irrationality that you will toss the debate away and run off?

Nopers, not outraged at all. Disappointed. A bit saddened, as I had thought you might want an honest discussion with real discourse. It's clear you don't. Sophistry is fun from time to time, but I'm legitimately interested in discussion of the OP. You aren't.

Forfeit? Yes. I forfeit a "discussion" of fallacious arguments, mental gynastics, and worthless strawmen in favor of more worthwhile reading. I provided evidence, supported my arguments, and drew logical conclusions. You chose to ignore them, provided strawmen and falacious counters, or cherry-picked to suit your agenda. Yeppers, I forfeit all that Sophistry to you.

Congratulations!

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The first few quote blocks were directed at other people, but I'm including them anyway because they speak volumes about the ignorance and petulance that seems to accompany fundamentalist apologetics.

Christianity was prominent in 17th and 18th centuries; so were inventions. Where we disagree is that I believe this is not coincidence, you believe it is. If you don't believe in God, you must believe that a great many things are the result of simple "coicidence"; like us being here, for instance.

Wow, two strawmen stacked right on top of each other.

If we're debating about whether God is evil, we must assume, first, that God is real. If we assume God is real, then we make the same assumption about his actions, including dying for our sins, healing the sick etc.
Only then can we debate whether he is evil or not.

Now, I've given you some examples of Gods deeds. Either He is good or evil. Which is it?

I've already proven this wrong. God could be a fictional character or an abstract concept that influences people's lives. Debating the merits of his actions does not require agreement with the implicitness of his existence. Also, your last statement is a black and white fallacy.

If a scientist contradicts the laws of logic, is he a scientist?
In the same way, if a Christian contradicts the laws of his own religion, he is not a Christian as Jesus describes.

I've made this statement many times already, even before you gave me the list, and it's one of simple logic. The Bible itself makes this statement about the Christian as opposed to the man who falsely claims to be one.
(snip)
*Redefine* Christians? The Bible itself describes what a Christian should be, and in all my words here I've not once strayed from that description. If you can point out a quote of mine that implies otherwise, please do so.

Within Christianity there are many competing groups, each claiming to be the one true religion. It's strange that you'd be able to draw the lines between true and false Christians with such absolute certainty when even Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians can't decide amongst themselves. How many "true Christians" are there in the world, exactly? It's surely a lot less than the 2 billion most apologists point to when they claim the popularity of their faith.

When it comes to the definition of Christianity, most of the time the practical approach is taken, in that anyone who calls himself a Christian and uses Christian dogma (perverted or not) to justify his actions should be called a Christian. How do you know for a fact that your own beliefs aren't a perversion of what God intended? Why should anyone take your particular interpretation of the bible at face value just because you say so?

All of these quotes in your examples say basically the same thing: God judged the world, therefore He's evil. God punished someone for doing wrong, therefore He's evil.
But actually these examples avoid the reasons that God Himself stated for making the judgements He did.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that site does:

In the Bible God might say something like: "I have heard the cries of the persecuted that rent the skies from this particular city; I have heard those who moan in agony as they are violated by the sexually immoral; the blood of the murdered ones cries out to me, and all of this pain and tyranny can no longer be ignored: now I will rise from my Throne, and now I will answer them; the evildoers can no longer be forgiven, but they will be delivered to destruction, and those who were crushed I will save from the hand of the wicked."

The site you mentioned takes an example like this, tears out all of what God says until a specific verse is left (eg. God destroyed this particular city) and then says "Look everyone! God destroyed this city because there were a few men there who were gay! He's obviously an evil tyrant!" leaving out the fact that the said gay men were rapists.

Wrong. You couldn't have picked a worse example to make your point. God killed all the men, women, children, and animals, for the sake of punishing a gang of angel rapers. For the record, they weren't gay, they were rapists. You might get away with conflating rape with homosexuality on religious apologetics sites, but you won't get away with it here.

God does this again and again, ordering his followers to destroy everything that moves, including children and babies, in order to punish those people for crimes that were likely invented post hoc, and many of which applied to the Israelites as well. Are you unaware of the fact that in times of war, it's common practice to demonize your enemies and render them sub-human, as justification for committing genocide against them?

If this is your evidence, Silentknight, I'm offended by it- not so much because it reufully scorns and insults everything that is my culture and religion, but more because the absolute irrationality that forms what you call evidence is so ridiculous, my dignity is lessened by having to answer to it.

If you were setting out to make a fallacious appeal to pity, you should have admitted it in the first place. I admitted that the SAB is only a superficial glance at those passages, but that's what you get when you take the bible at face value. The justifications for the divinely ordained slaughters you are advocating are also contingent on a superficial interpretation of those passages, such as that the rival tribes sacrificed children to the wrong gods or that they were sexually immoral. If your interpretation is correct, then so is the SAB.

For the record, I don't agree with the SAB most of the time, and have even written my own debunking of its claims. If anything is lending support to its point of view however, it's the arguments coming from literalist believers.

Yes. The Bible had laws regarding slavery in the Old Testament that the Jews were to abide by. The difference between the actions of the Jews and the whites are that:

The Jews were specifically chosen by God to conquer, even shown miracles, and having the words of a true Man of God on their side. The slaves they took in war were spared from death in war, and theoretically could have also learned the more righteous ways of the Jews of the time, thus resulting in eternal Salvation. The other kind of "slave" in the times were akin to what today we would call butlers or maids. In addition, the rights of slaves were clearly defined, as were the punishment of masters for mistreating those under their authority.

The whites, on the other hand, had none of these things; no miracles, no prophet, no confirmation of God's will in any degree: however much some may have claimed to, historically, they did *not*. Instead, they had their own arrogance, and thus went against God's will and had no right to take black slaves. The Bible condemns murder of the innocent, rape, and so on. But the whites broke all of these laws. They contradicted God not only in Biblical laws regarding slavery, but also in that they had no right to take slaves in the first place, unlike the Jews- but even the Jews were placed under strict laws regarding the rights of slaves.

This is disgusting. You are trying to justify the biblical practice of slavery, after I've already shown examples of how it was barbaric, by claiming it was okay due to their "chosen" status, their claims of miracles, and the fact that slavery was better than death? Do you not see how any atrocity, no matter how horrific, could be justified in this way? The bible states that God ordered his people to save female prisoners of war for raping. This happens in Judges 21, Numbers 31, and there are instructions for rape in Exodus 20-21. Are you claiming this was okay due to chosen status, miracles, and how slavery spared their lives?

I never said everyone did it, therefore it's right. I'm saying what the Jews did was right as opposed to what the other nations did, which was wrong. Although there are instances in Biblical history in which sexual relations occure to continue a man's family line, there is no verse saying that a woman was forced to lie with a man by God's law, but we do have verses regarding God's law that condemn rape. From this we can grasp that women had rights too.

You're still running away from what you said earlier:

The Bible verses regarding slavery were made in a time and culture when slavery was perfectly legal- all nations of the world did it. But the Biblical laws, probably unlike other nations of the time, taught about the *rights* of slaves, and listed how masters should be punished for mistreating them.

Okay, so slavery was perfectly legal and all nations of the world did it. If you weren't trying to justify biblical slavery by this statement, then what point were you trying to make? I've already proven the latter part of your statement wrong, but "probably unlike"? Are you admitting that you haven't actually compared slave laws with those of other nations at the time?

In Judges 2:14, 3:8, and 10:14 God sells his people back into slavery as punishment for their disobedience. Based on this, one could argue that God approved of the slave laws of other nations, including the Canaanites and the Philistines.

You've provided an example here of who Gandhi was, but *no* example of how King was in any degree influenced by him. Interesting.

I assumed people knew about this, or were capable of looking it up themselves if they haven't heard of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Influences
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/gandhi.htm

Hitler was a clever politician. He knew that Christianity was a positive image, and claiming that he was "chosen by God" might win him those votes. But when you remember about the way he spoke about evolution *after* he had those votes, and how many Christian/Catholic slaves he took, etc. this statement rings hollow.

Again, you missed my point. If you can give Christianity credit for being the first to stand up to Hitler, which is a ridiculous argument mind you, then one could just as easily blame Christian fundamentalism for inspiring Hitler.

I suppose you're talking about two different churches? And is that latter even a Christian church? Do you have dates and names to specify and confirm this? And, most importantly, does what this church of yours say work in harmony with Bible verses? If we're debating whether God is evil, then evil actions done in the name of God must be in perfect accordance with God's own teachings, as were the words spoken by the Christians who *opposed* Hitler: they had verses to back their claims.

This is nothing more than a repeat of the "no true Christians" fallacy, which I debunked above.

Your excuses don't suffice.

I'm not making excuses, I'm trying to provide an explanation. I don't need to make excuses at all because, from my point of view, there is no God to be insulted. Are you trying to say that you believe God is so feeble and weak that words, criticism, and insults can undermine him and take away his power? If so then he's no God worth worshiping, especially if he's the same God who orders executions and genocide in the OT, and it seems to me like we should ramp up the insults against him so that we can kill it before it spreads.

Mind you, it's also impossible to "kill" God, and for the same reasons.

I suggest *you* reread the argument and you will find otherwise.

Here's the quote you were responding to.

My view, not who you asked, but....
There is evil in the world (won't cover all of it, and what I will cover is quite sufficient for me) : children are killed/mutilated/foully mistreated all over the world every day; people are harmed/ etc./killed every day. IF there was a god and IF that god allows this, THEN that god is pure evil and it is my duty to track down and do my best to destroy it.

My assumption is no god - based on evidence by lack of behavior, BUT if I ever find I am wrong on that then I will function appropriately.

fuelair was saying that there is no God, therefore he wasn't talking about destroying anything real. I don't see any advocation of a shooting spree anywhere in here. He was addressing a hypothetical and making a conditional statement. Notice the use of the word "IF"?

If this is true, then the debate should be about whether belief in God is rational, not whether God is evil, or at least about what God truly teaches. So as I said before; you contradicted yourself.

No one who treats God with such scorn and hatred could possibly not believe in Him, since their own mad hate reveals that deep down, to some degree, they *do* believe in Him, if only to resent Him.

This is a very common misconception among amateur debaters. Attacking an idea, an argument, a concept, a belief, or a group that represents a certain point of view, is not the same as an ad hominem or personal attack. This very simple concept is one upon which the JREF membership agreement is based on, among others. Most non-believers will say "God" instead of "God of the bible / Old Testament" or "fundamentalist conception of God" in order to save time. It's generally assumed that when it comes to this sort of criticism, the specific negative aspects of God belief are being attacked. I shouldn't have to explain this.

People who conflate a disagreement of ideas with a personal attack or insult are typically those who use personal attacks to state their own disagreements.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
It is arbitrary but not unsupportable.

We actually have a test case in which monotheism was adopted by a primarily tribal society--7th and 8th Century Arabs. What followed was a "renaissance" against which even the European "renaissance" pales.

This is a single anecdote and in no way supports your claim. You'll need to do better than that. You haven't even proposed a reasonable mechanism of action. How is any magical being belief 'closer' to natural laws? Is there even anyone such as a recognized philosopher or scientist who echoes this conclusion of yours? Maybe if you posted a link I might find a better explanation for what you are claiming.

Spinoza.

 

[stilicho]

People need adequate food and shelter before they can spend time on observation and contemplation. That's a no brainer. But lots of people have had time for observation and contemplation in polytheistic societies. Look at all the gods the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas believed in. They developed the science of astronomy to a great degree as did many Native American societies who were also polytheistic. These groups had advanced agriculture as well. The Chinese were not monotheistic either.

It seems as if you have some cultural bias clouding your view.

The Chinese, Indians, and Meso-Americans were not nearly as tribalistic as medieval Europeans were at the same point in time. Europeans, moreover, had the handicap of a dependence on the Roman legacy of astrology and magic to define reality. The explosion of rationalism, enlightenment, and science in Europe only arrived through repeated contact with civilisations that were more economically advanced than theirs. If the feudal and tribal peoples of medieval Europe had encountered the Toltecs at their zenith they might have been destroyed.

 

[stilicho]

Within Christianity there are many competing groups, each claiming to be the one true religion. It's strange that you'd be able to draw the lines between true and false Christians with such absolute certainty when even Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians can't decide amongst themselves. How many "true Christians" are there in the world, exactly? It's surely a lot less than the 2 billion most apologists point to when they claim the popularity of their faith.

When it comes to the definition of Christianity, most of the time the practical approach is taken, in that anyone who calls himself a Christian and uses Christian dogma (perverted or not) to justify his actions should be called a Christian. How do you know for a fact that your own beliefs aren't a perversion of what God intended? Why should anyone take your particular interpretation of the bible at face value just because you say so?

I've always wondered how people can question virgin birth, resurrection, and the sacraments and yet consider themselves to be Christians. I have met many people who do exactly that. Part of it is fellowship, where you commune with like minded people to experience a particular form of collective mysticism. Some of it is obviously political, since cultural distinction or prominence is often associated with a weird sort of prostration before a deity.

The questions you are posing are similar to those posed by Spinoza and Kierkegaard. You probably woudn't be satisfied with their answers because they go contrary to your personal beliefs about "God". I figure that most of us here trust that consorting to Christianity is simply dancing with superstition and holds no psychological or physiological benefits.

This may mean that atheists represent a true intellectual evolution and could provide a sort of triumph of the will. If such energy could be realistically harnessed we probably could make a better world bereft of those enchained by superstition.

Are you in?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Christianity was prominent in 17th and 18th centuries; so were inventions. Where we disagree is that I believe this is not coincidence, you believe it is. If you don't believe in God, you must believe that a great many things are the result of simple "coicidence"; like us being here, for instance.

God beliefs add nothing to the description of the Universe but a layer of "coincidence" as you call it. Just a coincidence that some god decided to make humans? I see no more behind your version than mine. With, of course, the exception mine is based on observation and testing and yours is based on imagination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Now, I've given you some examples of Gods deeds. Either He is good or evil. Which is it?

Pretty fricken evil. You need only look at the suffering of the innocents to make that call.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Chinese, Indians, and Meso-Americans were not nearly as tribalistic as medieval Europeans were at the same point in time. Europeans, moreover, had the handicap of a dependence on the Roman legacy of astrology and magic to define reality. The explosion of rationalism, enlightenment, and science in Europe only arrived through repeated contact with civilisations that were more economically advanced than theirs. If the feudal and tribal peoples of medieval Europe had encountered the Toltecs at their zenith they might have been destroyed.

And this rambling supports your claim that monotheism led to the scientific process how?????

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Spinoza.

Are we supposed to understand your unsupported logic by yet another anecdote? How does Spinoza provide any evidence whatsoever that monotheism is any less magical thinking than polytheism?

 

[Mashuna]

Christianity was prominent in 17th and 18th centuries; so were inventions. Where we disagree is that I believe this is not coincidence, you believe it is. If you don't believe in God, you must believe that a great many things are the result of simple "coicidence"; like us being here, for instance.

This is one of the more bizzare arguments I've seen. Christianity was promient before the 17th century too, but fewer inventions. Inventions were common in ancient Greece, but no Christianity there. If you're going to go for the correllation=causation fallacy, at least try and find a proper correllation.

Yes, I do believe that us being here is chance, and as you've probably guessed, I don't believe in God.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

To shift gears for a moment, since I've been arguing in the negative for most of this discussion:

I've always wondered how people can question virgin birth, resurrection, and the sacraments and yet consider themselves to be Christians. I have met many people who do exactly that. Part of it is fellowship, where you commune with like minded people to experience a particular form of collective mysticism. Some of it is obviously political, since cultural distinction or prominence is often associated with a weird sort of prostration before a deity.

Although I am not a Christian, I do think that it's indeed possible, because dogma and meaningless traditions are not necessary for one to find value in the moral or spiritual teachings of a religious philosophy.

The questions you are posing are similar to those posed by Spinoza and Kierkegaard. You probably woudn't be satisfied with their answers because they go contrary to your personal beliefs about "God". I figure that most of us here trust that consorting to Christianity is simply dancing with superstition and holds no psychological or physiological benefits.

No, I wouldn't argue that it's 100% useless. Like all religions, it touches on the truth at some points, but not so much on others. There are certain aspects of any given religion that can be sifted out and applied constructively to one's life, though these often come with the baggage of useless beliefs as well as harmful and destructive tenets. The key is to cut through the BS to find them. Keep in mind that I'm addressing generalizations, not defending the negative message of any given religion.

This may mean that atheists represent a true intellectual evolution and could provide a sort of triumph of the will. If such energy could be realistically harnessed we probably could make a better world bereft of those enchained by superstition.

Are you in?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but no, I'm always a bit hesitant to throw in my lot whenever I hear someone, for example Richard Dawkins, speak of atheism in the context of a movement or revolution. Atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, is too narrow a definition, and can apply to all kinds of people, from intellectuals and scientists to complete morons such as the Raelians. If you were to replace "atheism" with "humanism" then I'd be more inclined to agree, since the latter is a more comprehensive moral philosophy of the kind you seem to be describing.

 

[stilicho]

And this rambling supports your claim that monotheism led to the scientific process how?????

Universals.

 

[stilicho]

Are we supposed to understand your unsupported logic by yet another anecdote? How does Spinoza provide any evidence whatsoever that monotheism is any less magical thinking than polytheism?

He doesn't just supply evidence, dear, but he *is* evidence of it.

I know, I know, he specified in his Theologico-Political Treatise that women were "too delicate" to be allowed to vote but I am pretty sure that's because he was a dedicated sceptic.

 

[stilicho]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but no, I'm always a bit hesitant to throw in my lot whenever I hear someone, for example Richard Dawkins, speak of atheism in the context of a movement or revolution. Atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, is too narrow a definition, and can apply to all kinds of people, from intellectuals and scientists to complete morons such as the Raelians. If you were to replace "atheism" with "humanism" then I'd be more inclined to agree, since the latter is a more comprehensive moral philosophy of the kind you seem to be describing.

I was being my own silly self.

I was practically 100% convinced of atheism--even to the point of an "atheist movement" such as you suggested--until I started reading Belloc, Lewis and Chesterton.

You start reading enough and you realise how little you know or even are capable of knowing. It's fairly humbling. I know those three guys are terribly unpopular these days (perhaps even--gasp--FASCIST!!). But how can I argue that secular humanism is a good alternative when confronted (as I told SG) by 50 Cent, Eminem, Cosmopolitan, and Hustler?

I figure, half-heartedly, that it's a good trade to be free of "old tribalism" and embrace "neo-tribalism" that is offensive but, at least, guarantees a few of my rights.