The others...

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm looking for a thread of some form of conciliation here.

It is the crucible of ideas that is the 21st century, and there is only war.

Valmont

It's kind of annoying that some people, just for one second, could not try to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas without smashing the whole thing down into the usual, pointless back and forth that never gets us anywhere.

Kipperhell

Valmont wrote: »

It's kind of annoying that some people, just for one second, could not try to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas without smashing the whole thing down into the usual, pointless back and forth that never gets us anywhere.

I don't know if you mean me or not but I find it frustrating that we started from a point that curtailed the meaning and was unable to correct the course when it was veering further off. I'll gladly bow out if that is what people think that about my contributions
I personally feel I have tried to discuss the points and am willing to engage but there is limited scope to what can be engaged if one side is using boxing gloves to spar and the other is using a knife.

Overblood

Valmont wrote: »

It's kind of annoying that some people, just for one second, could not try to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas without smashing the whole thing down into the usual, pointless back and forth that never gets us anywhere.

One cannot deny their own common sense.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Introduction doesn't secure belief. I don't think birth adequately explains converts and so on.

Introduction explains belief in the vast majority of religious people on the planet. Most people who are 'born' into a particular religion stay with that religion. Converts are few and far between in the grand scale of things.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why aren't we all believers if we are biologically predetermined to be so?

Genetics doesn't work like that. It doesn't necessarily predermine religious belief, but perhaps supplies a propencity

Me wrote:

Billions of other religious people on the planet can't possibly be wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

I find this a foolish argument to propose. I may have done so in my history on Boards.ie, however numbers does not equal truth. This isn't a proper reason to suggest that Christianity is any more through than any other belief system that exists.

I take it you mean that it would be a foolish arguement for a religious person to propose, but it is proposed nonetheless

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith is accepting the evidence, believing in it, and acting upon it.

I often hear faith being explained as accepting something despite a lack of evidence. Depends what you mean by evidence (please please please I don't want to go there).

JC 2K3

Ultimately, I think everyone goes through at least one phase of agnosticism where they do research and try to explore what they believe.

The thing is, I think those who've had lives heavily saturated in religion who go through this phase subconsciously looking for reasons why their faith is valid as opposed to an open minded look at the possibility of no God existing. This is probably due to the influences that happen to surround them due to their faith (i.e. they'll probably have religious friends, have access to and knowledge of Christian literature etc.)

Works the same way with your average Catholic who might go to mass and have a bit of a pray every now and then and one day decides the whole thing seems a bit iffy. Without much Christian influences around them, they're going to reach the conclusion of atheism a lot more quickly and easily.

So basically, forming beliefs is all to do with what's going on in your life and what influences surround you at the time of this agnostic period.

After the belief is formed, it is usually strengthened by further research, which is generally lapped up without much critical thought. Christians might think the complexity of the world being impossible without god is an incredibly strong argument while atheists might think that evolution unequivocally disproves god.

I'm fast becoming a nihilist.

liamw

Belief: None (atheist)

I'll focus on Christianity but I need to split it up into two different groups based on my experience.

The first group I will focus on is the LARGE majority in my opinion, those who prefer not the think for themselves and remain ignorant, even about their own religion (a lot of atheists will know more about their religion than they do themselves). This group frustrates me.

The other group are more educated and less ignorant. e.g. Jackass . This usually includes people who would shift from atheism to theism also.

---

Group 1: Why I am Christian

---

1. Never really thought about it, this is just the way I am. My parents brought me up as a Christian.
3. I live in a Christian community, everyone else is Christian and this is where I fit in (might not actually say this, but this is justification).
4. Millions of people can't be wrong (this isn't bad logic in principle, but just doesn't work with everything, including religion).
5. I gives me comfort, helps me get through the hard times.
6. Don't/Can't imagine just dying and that's it. Mortality scares me.
7. The Bible is good. We get our morals from it (heard this one recently, a girl friend of mine couldn't fathom how we could have morals without the Bilble. :rolleyes:).
8. Look around at life's complexity, there had to be an intelligent creator behind it all.

---

Group 2: Why I am Christian
(I'd like someone to help me answer some of these, because I'm not sure)

---

1. I've examined and studied the books and literature, and come to the conclusion that existence of God is more probable than not.
2. The Bible is historically accurate (all of it???) because there is plently of evidence of the landmarks present in the Bible (temples etc.), all those people couldn't have spread a lie like that or killed themselves in the name of something that didn't happen (eg. resurrection). etc.
3. The fundamental constants of our universe are so finely tuned, it indicates that a creator is the most probable explanation for it.
4. I've seen/witnessed miracles (supernatural events) happen, or I believe that they did. When I weigh up the supernatural explanation vs. the other one, the evidence lies so strongly in favour of the supernatural one, I sitll think it must be true???

Húrin

My beliefs: wavering Christian, but always a theist.

Why the other believes:

1. The existence of God is a threat to individual autonomy. Since we seems to have this autonomy by nature, religion must be a political invention to restrain people.

2. All truth claims must be subject to analysis by sense experience and science (empiricism). Religious faith is not subject to these and is thus probably false.

sink wrote: »

Belief system: Humanist

How do you think that theists justify being theists?

Lower standards for determining facts coupled with wishful thinking.

What an obvious attempt at antagonising the OP.

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

One cannot deny their own common sense.

But you can concede that the way you see things is not the exact same way that everyone sees things.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Belief: None (atheist)

I'll focus on Christianity but I need to split it up into two different groups based on my experience.

I'll be dealing with both of the groups if you don't mind

liamw wrote: »

1. Never really thought about it, this is just the way I am. My parents brought me up as a Christian.
2. I live in a Christian community, everyone else is Christian and this is where I fit in (might not actually say this, but this is justification).
3. Millions of people can't be wrong (this isn't bad logic in principle, but just doesn't work with everything, including religion).
4. I gives me comfort, helps me get through the hard times.
5. Don't/Can't imagine just dying and that's it. Mortality scares me.
6. The Bible is good. We get our morals from it (heard this one recently, a girl friend of mine couldn't fathom how we could have morals without the Bilble. :rolleyes:).
7. Look around at life's complexity, there had to be an intelligent creator behind it all.

1. I'd argue that being a Christian is the way I am also. I disagree with the notion that one is a Christian from birth or that Christianity is hereditory. I can remember a time when I wasn't very Christian at all, but over time I have transformed into the person I am now. I'm skeptical over the "I was raised in a Christian family", "I go to mass every Sunday".

2. Fitting in and the community sense could only be considered a very minor reason, or a secondary reason. It is possible for community sense to be formed in secular communities too, or in other religious communities.

3. Argument ad populum. Proportions do not necessarily mean truth. Truth will be held by a minority. Even the Bible discusses the difference between the narrow gate (Christianity) vs the broad gate (others) and that the truth can only be found by going through the narrow gate and only few will find it.

Matthew 7:13-14 wrote:

‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.'

Even by the reasoning of the Bible, this isn't the best way of argument.

4. Many things can give people comfort.

5. I can't either. However unexpected things can happen.

6. Christians do get morals from the Bible, and it is considered to be a source of divine wisdom. However, to say that one cannot value certain things and make judgements based on those values is quite wrong. Her statement would have been better in saying, "I don't know how atheists can have coherent moral values without a consistent moral source". I sometimes struggle with that myself

7. This argument does appeal to me slightly, I must admit.

liamw wrote: »

---

Group 2: Why I am Christian
(I'd like someone to help me answer some of these, because I'm not sure)

---

1. I've examined and studied the books and literature, and come to the conclusion that existence of God is more probable than not.
2. The Bible is historically accurate (all of it???) because there is plently of evidence of the landmarks present in the Bible (temples etc.), all those people couldn't have spread a lie like that or killed themselves in the name of something that didn't happen (eg. resurrection). etc.
3. The fundamental constants of our universe are so finely tuned, it indicates that a creator is the most probable explanation for it.
4. I've seen/witnessed miracles (supernatural events) happen, or I believe that they did. When I weigh up the supernatural explanation vs. the other one, the evidence lies so strongly in favour of the supernatural one, I sitll think it must be true???

1. Yes, however examining books and literature also means examining external sources that could be of use to you in backing up the Biblical record. For example, the Bible may be inspiring, and the Bible may be the authoritative text, however it is a hypothesis. For example, I have a few historical texts at my disposal such as Josephus' - Jewish War, Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews, Eusebius' - History of the Church just in case details about the historicity of Christ, the early church and other figures do need to be substantiated from elsewhere. Research outside of the Bible can also be crucial. However, I may not have done enough of this yet either.

2. As for all of the Bible being historically accurate. There are allegorical texts in the Bible particularly in the books of the prophets. I believe the Bible is subject to literary scrutiny just like any text. To explain the fall of Nebuchadnezzar by which he would be cast out of Babylon for 7 years, Daniel uses parable. Likewise Isaiah and others use parable. It's not as easy as saying is the whole Bible historically accurate, it's as simple as saying that each book has it's purpose. Prophetic books are well, prophesies explained often in allegory. Historical book are books which explain histories. Poetic books such as Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs deal with the human experience.

As for the Resurrection, yes I believe that to be the truth, and I would explain the authenticity of archaeological sites as in the Bible as a different point as I have done in my signature link.

3. Yes, I believe this, you saw that I argued this on the other thread.

4. I can't say that I have experienced a miracle, but I have experienced spiritual experiences yes and this is perhaps the main argument for my Christianity. See the link in my signature, point 4 explains this rather well. As for supernatural vs natural. It's not simply a case that supernatural trumps the natural one. It involves what you can rule out. If you believe the world consists only of natural processes, and natural processes alone, you will never consider the supernatural in any given answer you will provide.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

What an obvious attempt at antagonising the OP.

It wasn't meant to be antagonising. I only call things as I see them. I could never accept a lot of the evidence that Jakkass espouses as a basis for his faith. That tells me I adopt a more stringent approach to sorting out what I accept as authoritative evidence and what is not.

I'll admit that the way I see things is no more valid than your own. Using my own thought processes, I think I'm right but how do I know my cognition isn't fundamentally faulty and your argument is actually more reasoned than my own. I have to place faith in my own thought process as it's not something I'm willing to outsource but I'm certainly not going to deny anybody else their own. That is unless I see their own thoughts as fundamentally dangerous which is not the case with the average believer.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes and others have criticised me for saying that atheism is the belief in God's nonexistence, but rather that atheism is more agnostic.

I didn't actually put you on my ignore list so I could keep an eye on you and now I'm glad I didn't because here you are still talking about me and misrepresenting me with over simplistic statements. I never said atheism is the same as agnosticism, I explained that there are a range of levels of religious beliefs with varying levels of theistic tendency and certainty and I showed you a graph to explain it. Basically my point was that someone can call themselves an atheist while still leaving open the possibility that some evidence might be presented in the future to change their minds

I've just read the god delusion and I found Dawkins explains the levels of theism better than me. Here are numbers 6 and 7 on his list of theistic confidence. He counts himself at level 6

6. Very low probability [of god's existence], but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God....'

And he says he would be suprised to meet many people in category 7, the same as I said to you despite your repeated protestations that that belief represents the majority of atheists. The rest of the levels are on page 73 of the paperback if you're interested

iirc you claim to have read the book but I doubt it because of your repeated misunderstanding of me making the same point (before I read the book btw) and because I have found that 90% of the stuff you bring up is covered quite well in it, in almost all cases using exactly the same logic as is used here whenever you bring up these points. My level of frustration with your posts increased even more after reading the book because you claim to have already read Dawkins' eloquent and air tight rebuttals of so many of the things that you regularly say. What do you expect from us that you didn't get from him? And when we all give the same response that he gave, why do you keep asking the same questions?

I don't expect you to change your position on it because you didn't through repeated clarifications and apparently reading it in the book. This post is to clear up the misunderstanding for others

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

One cannot deny their own common sense.

Can you point out the post that asked you to do that?

Húrin

sink wrote: »

It wasn't meant to be antagonising. I only call things as I see them. I could never accept a lot of the evidence that Jakkass espouses as a basis for his faith. That tells me I adopt a more stringent approach to sorting out what I accept as authoritative evidence and what is not.

I'll admit that the way I see things is no more valid than your own.

But you do think that, to brand your standards for evidence as "higher" than any theists'.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

But you do think that, to brand your standards for evidence as "higher" than any theists'.

I was speaking from a broad philosophical perspective. Down here from my subjective perspective using the only reasoning I have available to me (my own) I believe that my standards are higher. But how do I know I'm right in the grand scheme of things, I don't, but I have to go with things as I currently see them for that is the only option open to me.

philologos

Sam: I apologise if I did misrepresent your opinion, but that is what I gleaned from it.

Would you like to actually engage with the idea or the spirit of the thread or would you not it's really your choice. I believe we can do more than just mere squabbling, infact mere squabbling infact isn't the way I seek to do this, or any other discussion I will ever do with atheists on boards.ie.

I thank you for your correction, you don't have to be so antagonistic in doing so however, we can learn from eachother and we should learn from eachother wherever possible. It's amazing how hot and bothered some people can get at a thread that is aimed to break the ice a bit in here.

I read up to about chapter 4 in 2007 when the first edition (the bigger one) was still around. I've since loaned it out to a Christian friend of mine to read along with a book about how religion and modern science can be reconciled by Francis Collins. His explanation of the 1 - 7 scale is quite good, however to say that his book is airtight is a bit dishonest considering the errors in theology that he makes throughout his section on "Arguments from Scripture". You cite it as if it is fact though. Just because Richard Dawkins says it doesn't mean that all atheists subscribe to his theory, or anything else. Just because Richard Dawkins says one thing doesn't mean I should automatically view your opinion as being the same. Be a bit reasonable.

You seem to want me to accept your arguments blindly as being "airtight". I don't agree, I think you're mistaken and I think that atheism is a flawed ideology, I'm going to hold that view as I find that it isn't reasonable to hold any other view concerning it right now. You're just going to have to deal with my differing opinion instead of getting all hot and bothered about it. I can see where atheists come from but that's it. I'm not going to ditch my religion.

It seems everything I do, you and certain others seem to want to criticise me at every turn. Go ahead.

sink: Do we need yet another discussion about the standards for evidence in here? Wouldn't it be better try to keep talking about the reasons that were provided by people for atheism or theism from the differing sides and lets try to discuss them and see if anyone can elaborate on any of the reasons given.

johnnyskeleton

My belief system: I believe that the gods propounded by all major or minor religions that I have come across don't exist, and I presume the ones I haven't come across also don't exist. I do however enjoy questioning the religiously inclined, and I accept that there may be a divine being (I just don't accept that humans have or could have any knowledge of it). I guess that makes me an agnostic I suppose.

Why Chirstians believe what they believe?

I had a teacher who once asked the class why do parents lie to their children about santa claus? He believed it was because the lie was necessary in order to get them to think critically for themselves, not to take the accepted orthodoxy as truth and to prevent them from growing up to be gullible. I think the same could be used for christianity, in that if people are raised as christians, hopefully they will question it and either find it wanting or else satisfy themselves that it is the one true path. While I would hope most people would naturally choose the latter, there's one born every minute as the fella says.

I guess Christians believe what they believe because they just don't get the joke.

Why does the Christian church teach what it teaches?

I think this is the more interesting question, and the answer is ultimately about controlling other people. There is nothing divine about wanting to manipulate other people's views, it's all too human.

Húrin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why does the Christian church teach what it teaches?

Because they believe that God told them to teach it. They want to serve the human need for spiritual fulfilment/life.

Húrin

sink wrote: »

I was speaking from a broad philosophical perspective. Down here from my subjective perspective using the only reasoning I have available to me (my own) I believe that my standards are higher. But how do I know I'm right in the grand scheme of things, I don't, but I have to go with things as I currently see them for that is the only option open to me.

That's complete nonsense. The things that appear to be true according to our first impulses, we know, do not always stand to scrutiny. Likewise, because your impulse says that anyone who looks at the evidence the right way MUST follow your atheist belief system, does not make it so. And as a thinking human you should be able to see that.

johnnyskeleton

Húrin wrote: »

Because they believe that God told them to teach it. They want to serve the human need for spiritual fulfilment/life.

I mean in a more long term view, encompassing, for example, the crusades and such. They had nothing to do with worshipping god (IMO) and everything to do with power.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

That's complete nonsense. The things that appear to be true according to our first impulses, we know, do not always stand to scrutiny. Likewise, because your impulse says that anyone who looks at the evidence the right way MUST follow your atheist belief system, does not make it so. And as a thinking human you should be able to see that.

Your not really following me at all. You just repeated what I said but in different language. I'm quiet open to the fact that I could be wrong and that not everyone will see it the way I see it, but I can only see things as I see them. Your the one whose being antagonistic now, you're not really paying attention to, or thinking about what I am saying.

philologos

kiffer wrote: »

hum... more evolutionary biology and modern physics show us that we don't need to invoke God for the creation of the universe as we see it now or the complexity that we see in living systems... or for that matter the existence of life ... which seems to fall out of chemistry with out the requirement for a magic spark.

Hm, interesting. You think that things can come into existence in and of themselves. I.E That the creation can be the creator. This is something I am unable to get my head around.

kiffer wrote: »

It's hard to accept that a universal moral system is basically do what I say, not what I do... and what I say today is different from what I said before.
Killing is wrong only so long as God says so, not because of any reasoned reason ... Thou shalt not kill, Go forth and Kill your enemies... OT God is very different from NT God... or so I always thought... the lads over on the Other forum have made a good case from him being as much of a jerk now as ever.

I think that morals are more that killing is wrong because God says so. Killing is wrong because it inflicts harm on another who is in God's image. We are both members of humanity therefore it is wrong to inflict such harm on our equal no matter what creed, colour, sexuality and so on.

I do think God is an authority in my life though. It's part of the reason why I worship Him, due to the fact I am so in awe in what God has done in my life, and in the lives of others, I'm so in awe at his record of divine revelation. I can't help but be inspired by the word of the Lord in peoples lives.

I don't think the OT God is any different from the NT God. God exacts vengeance and is a rightful judge. Infact I can show you that most of the NT doesn't arise from anything new, but arises from teachings of the Old Testament, for example Jesus' teaching on prayer being of few words was written by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5:2 almost a thousand years before Jesus ever walked the face of the earth. Jesus was a teacher who taught Jewish justice and Jewish morals in a society that had long forgotten them and Jesus as the Messiah fulfilled prophesy to bring the good news of God's salvation to the Gentiles.

I think if God created the world, He knows what is best for us to do and best for us not to do for our wellbeing.

kiffer wrote: »

Not exactly ... but I get why you might think that's the issue...
How about It's offensive to believe that humans are all fallen sinners, basically scumbags that deserve to be tortured for ever unless they luck out and find Christ.
OR
The very idea of hell is offensive ...
OR
It is impossible to reconcile Hell as described in the bible and the idea of a loving merciful God...

I really don't think that hell is all that offensive if God has given you the opportunity to be saved and to believe in His way, His truth and His life. Hell is warranted for transgressing against the highest authority. I believe God has given you this way out precisely because God loves you. I think humanity can either choose to be stubborn and hard hearted or they can accept God's grace for people are saved through this grace (Ephesians 2).

kiffer wrote: »

Many don't, the average punter just muddles by... Faith without ever having thought about the issue would be pointless and stupid... especially when you decry people that don't believe what you believe with out having considered in any meaningful way. But that goes both ways really...

I agree. I think people should think about their beliefs study them and adopt them if they are satisfied with the conclusion of their study. I personally don't decry other people for different beliefs, but I think they are ultimately fruitless in terms of truth value.

kiffer wrote: »

He does kill an awful lot of people ... which seems to be the easy way out... by all accounts he's a pretty smart guy... you think he could work something better out... other than coming to Earth and blood sacrificing himself...
Again the fact that he comes across as a jerk at time is not in itself enough of a reason to not believe... but it messes up the idea of a loving caring merciful god...

I think that God has given people life and that God has the right to take life away should He so choose. I suppose this is based on the belief in a creator God however.

kiffer wrote: »

Yup... but he's just got better PR in the NT.

See above.

kiffer wrote: »

It is a little strange that we consider a unique entity that exists outside of and before time male... And that he would then make men dominant over woman in the way the bible proscribes ...

Careful. I don't believe God to be male. I relate to God as a Father figure. I do not believe that God has biological organs like the rest of us. God tells Moses to be careful about our standards at the burning bush, saying "I am that I am". I.E take God as God has been revealed, do not impose human standards on God too much.

kiffer wrote: »

I think it's very hard for people that have never have had a "spiritual experience" to get what it means to you... but also sometimes it's hard for people that put a lot of stock in spiritual experiences to realize that what they consider a spiritual experience other people might just consider a mere interesting, even amazing internal experience and never think to call it spiritual...

I hear you. I think it's one of the main stumbling blocks in atheist - theist dialogue.

kiffer wrote: »

Mysterious ways... :rolleyes: ... The only prayer I believe ever actually gets even close to answered is one for courage/strength and so on... and frankly I think that's more about psyching yourself up then about actually receiving anything external...

I'm sure if you asked on the Christianity forum you would hear that people can tell you of many cases that fall outside these categories.

kiffer wrote: »

Well we don't... except in the book itself, and it would say that wouldn't it.

Interesting point. It depends whether or not you think a creator God would take an interest in humanity. From an atheist point of view, and I've thought of this sometimes when people have discussed with me about "The world is so miniscule in the universe, why would God even care about it?" type approaches. I sometimes think to myself there might be some merit in that, then the other side of me says this merely is a testament to God's creation and to the power of God. I end up being amazed.

kiffer wrote: »

I don't think you did too bad a job but I don't think any of the theists got their heads into Atheist Space any better than any of the atheists got their heads into Theist Space... but that could just be because of the heavy use of 'seem' which has been discussed.

We all find it hard to let go

dvpower wrote: »

Introduction explains belief in the vast majority of religious people on the planet. Most people who are 'born' into a particular religion stay with that religion. Converts are few and far between in the grand scale of things.

Introduction can't secure belief, it can put it in the minds of people perhaps but it doesn't secure it. We need to think for ourselves, and find faith in Jesus Christ for ourselves, we can't rely on our parents forever if we have been introduced that way.

dvpower wrote: »

Genetics doesn't work like that. It doesn't necessarily predermine religious belief, but perhaps supplies a propencity

Fair enough. I concede my objection.

dvpower wrote: »

I take it you mean that it would be a foolish arguement for a religious person to propose, but it is proposed nonetheless

Believe it or not, I can disagree with some things fellow Christians say, or even things I may have said myself in the past. None of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes in reasoning, arguing and so on.

dvpower wrote: »

I often hear faith being explained as accepting something despite a lack of evidence. Depends what you mean by evidence (please please please I don't want to go there).

It does depend on what we mean by evidence, I don't intend on discussing evidence or standards thereof on this thread.

midlandsmissus

marco_polo wrote: »

I think this post marks the beginning of the end of this thread.

I see this post got thanks and I think it needs a comment.

Why does my negative post against atheism mark the beginning of the end of the thread, and the op's negative post against theism doesn't?

Bias has no belonging in a thread like this.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

It is the crucible of ideas that is the 21st century, and there is only war.

Excellent reference.

philologos

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I see this post got thanks and I think it needs a comment.

Why does my negative post against atheism mark the beginning of the end of the thread, and the op's negative post against theism doesn't?

Bias has no belonging in a thread like this.

The OP is me. The point of this was to get into the others shoes. I tried my best to give reasons why atheists don't believe in Christianity. I personally do believe in Jesus Christ. If I can be biased against my own position, I must have done incredibly well in what I aimed to do. These weren't my opinions, these were the reasons how I think atheists justify their position.

The aim of the thread is clearly outlined in the OP, apologies for any confusion caused.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

1) God seems incompatible with evolutionary biology and modern physics.

For me, it's more that God is not defined in any scientific sense.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Pain and suffering cannot exist in the same world as an omnipotent omnibenificent.
3) The church is hypocritical, and abuses have arisen out of it.
4) Christians are hypocritical.
5) Christians are judgemental.
6) It seems hard to accept a universal moral system, that is so closed minded.
7) It's offensive to believe that Jesus is the only way to save ones soul from hell.
8) Faith seems stupid because Christians don't think about what they believe.
10) Faith seems to breed fanatics, such as suicide bombers, and abortion clinic bombers.
11) Faith seems to be a barrier to a completely secular society.
12) Faith seems to cause hatred and division.
13) Faith seems to breed arrogance.
14) Christians seem to impose standards on non-Christians.
15) God seems to be a monster in certain parts of the Torah, and the historical books.
16) There seems to be a diachotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.
17) The Bible seems to be riddled with contradictions.
18) Christianity seems to be too patriarchal.
19) Christianity seems to deny personal freedoms.
23) Christianity seems to be based on archaic moral norms, we need to move on.

These are not reasons. Specifics of Christianity have absolutely nothing to do with my lack of belief.

Jakkass wrote: »

9) Miracles seem absurd.
20) I have never felt any spiritual experience, as such I have no evidence to believe that they occur.
22) We have no assurances that divine revelation took place.

Yes, these would be reasons.

Borneo Fnctn

My beliefs: I have no beliefs as such. I merely make assumptions based on evidence.

Why I think Christians believe:

1. Indoctrination from an early age.
2. Fear of damnation.
3. Feelings of shame for being a sinner.
4. Gratitude to Jesus for dying for my sins (which I still don't really understand)
5. I have no better way to explain the universe and I am not interested in hearing one.
6. I think faith benefits me as a person.
7. I like Christian morals.
8. Christianity is a safe bet. If I'm wrong, I lose nothing.
9. I have genuine faith.
10. Jesus did indeed exist. Therefore he rose from the dead and is the son of God.
11. Christianity is based on love and forgiveness which I think is unique.

liamw

Jakkass, am I allowed to retort to your response yet?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Jakkass, am I allowed to retort to your response yet?

Yes, go for it

jackpalance: I don't think any Christian would say "I believe in God because I was "indoctrinated" (note the inverted commas). Please try to get into the spirit of the thread.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, interesting. You think that things can come into existence in and of themselves. I.E That the creation can be the creator. This is something I am unable to get my head around.

No...
I think that the idea of a Creator/Prime Mover is nonsensical...
hmmm nonsensical might be a bit strong but let me just say it like this:
As far back as we can figure there is no need to invoke a god...
However if we push back far enough we reach a point beyond which we observe and know nothing...
Must there, at some point, somewhere beyond this limit to our understanding, deep in the mists of time, be a Prime mover?...
An entity, event or agent which itself needs no instigation...
To this you may attribute characteristics, features and motives.
I do not.
I would say that I am ignostic with regards to a deistic prime mover.
I'm willing to say "I don't know", but I acknowledge that this is not as spiritually satisfying as believing in a person who's intellect must be so absolutely alien to our own yet also is capable of similar emotional states as we are... Love, Anger, that finds certain actions to which it may have no analogue abominable, that cares whether or not we believe in it MORE than it cares about our actual actions...

I think that morals are more that killing is wrong because God says so. Killing is wrong because it inflicts harm on another who is in God's image. We are both members of humanity therefore it is wrong to inflict such harm on our equal no matter what creed, colour, sexuality and so on.

Interesting... So do you feel killing is morally wrong independent of Gods will? Intrinsically and in of itself, wrong? Are there actual moral absolutes or just those set by God' Will?
What does made in God's image mean to you? Spiritual image? metal image? physical image?

I do think God is an authority in my life though. It's part of the reason why I worship Him, due to the fact I am so in awe in what God has done in my life, and in the lives of others, I'm so in awe at his record of divine revelation. I can't help but be inspired by the word of the Lord in peoples lives.

Hum... What has God done in your life? I don't mean to be confrontational here... It's just that when people say things like ".. what God has done in my life..." I get a little confused... Generally it looks like people are thanking God for the actions of Free Willed Humans... although that's putting it simply.

I don't think the OT God is any different from the NT God. God exacts vengeance and is a rightful judge. Infact I can show you that most of the NT doesn't arise from anything new, but arises from teachings of the Old Testament, for example Jesus' teaching on prayer being of few words was written by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5:2 almost a thousand years before Jesus ever walked the face of the earth. Jesus was a teacher who taught Jewish justice and Jewish morals in a society that had long forgotten them and Jesus as the Messiah fulfilled prophesy to bring the good news of God's salvation to the Gentiles.

Ok. as I said ... the lads over on the Christianity forum have made this case pretty strongly before... TBH I don't consider God being the same in the OT and the NT to be necessarily a good thing...

I think if God created the world, He knows what is best for us to do and best for us not to do for our wellbeing.

And I think that if God is the invention of man He does not necessarily know what is best / not best... OR even if he is not purely an invention of man then we do commonly just make up attributes for our gods based on our needs at the time...

I really don't think that hell is all that offensive if God has given you the opportunity to be saved and to believe in His way, His truth and His life. Hell is warranted for transgressing against the highest authority. I believe God has given you this way out precisely because God loves you. I think humanity can either choose to be stubborn and hard hearted or they can accept God's grace for people are saved through this grace (Ephesians 2).

... isn't it amazing how two people can be on completely different wavelengths when it comes to thinking about an issue ...

I'm working off the assumption that Hell is a place of eternal and unrelenting torture as per biblical descriptions... I understand that you maybe working off a different softer less disgusting definition, such as "existing outside of the knowledge of God" or "Oblivion, True Death"... before I go on and try to make clear my objection to the Hell idea and the idea of Justification by Faith alone, please let us know what you actually think "Hell" means/is.

I agree. I think people should think about their beliefs study them and adopt them if they are satisfied with the conclusion of their study. I personally don't decry other people for different beliefs, but I think they are ultimately fruitless in terms of truth value.

:-) interesting... if they find it personally satisfying based on their research how can you claim that it is fruitless in terms of truth value? after all you are using similar criteria to decide that your beliefs are of Fruitful Truth Value...

I think that God has given people life and that God has the right to take life away should He so choose. I suppose this is based on the belief in a creator God however.

I disagree. Either human life has a fundamental objective value and it is wrong to kill and that applies to a creator... or the creator is not subject to this valuation in which case it's not an objective value...

But that's largely semantic ****.

The parent does not have the right to kill their child... but as someone pointed out we don't "Create" our children we merely reproduce...
What if we built from scratch a True AI? a self-aware sophont... would we have the right to kill it on a whim as you would suggest God has with us?

See above.



Careful. I don't believe God to be male. I relate to God as a Father figure. I do not believe that God has biological organs like the rest of us. God tells Moses to be careful about our standards at the burning bush, saying "I am that I am". I.E take God as God has been revealed, do not impose human standards on God too much.



I hear you. I think it's one of the main stumbling blocks in atheist - theist dialogue.



I'm sure if you asked on the Christianity forum you would hear that people can tell you of many cases that fall outside these categories.

Well... Too be honest... mostly I believe that they are seeing patterns which probably aren't there... confirmation bias, co-incidence, Thanking God for things you should be thanking other humans for... and so on.

Interesting point. It depends whether or not you think a creator God would take an interest in humanity. From an atheist point of view, and I've thought of this sometimes when people have discussed with me about "The world is so miniscule in the universe, why would God even care about it?" type approaches. I sometimes think to myself there might be some merit in that, then the other side of me says this merely is a testament to God's creation and to the power of God. I end up being amazed.

We all find it hard to let go

I really think that people have shockingly different thought processes...