If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

himnextdoor · 12-03-2011 08:33AM

Wicknight wrote: »

You simply have to know that humans make up religions, and believe supernatural things that aren't true.

Absolutely and from the day we are born we are programmed to accept magic and nonsense as data relating to actual reality. Tooth fairies, Santa Claus, reinforcing and re-reinforcing a tendency to accept information at face value. Would a child's joy at receiving gifts be diminished for lack of an imaginary time-travelling magician? What is accomplished by feeding such concepts to children?

Pooh-poohing religion is no different, to those who do it, to dispelling myths such as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. However, it must be remembered that the tendency for humans to adopt religion is one of the things that led to cohesion in societies.

The problem is that the 'controlability' of humans is often (if not always) exploited by those who administer the word of God. There will always be people willing to take advantage of the weak by offering protection and there will always be weak people looking for protection. Society ensures it and religious leaders profit from it.

A tree in the shade will not grow as high as a tree in the sun and men cast shadows.

philologos · 12-03-2011 09:35AM

Gah, Wicknight. It appears that you don't appreciate that Christianity is unique from other world religions and needs to be dealt with on the basis of its own criterion rather than a "they're all the same" approach.

As for Zeus and God not both being true, that's true. This doesn't mean that God can't exist it just means that God and Zeus can't exist together. Not much of an argument.

You also missed the point about the "no evidence" argument. It fails because there are a lot of people who believe there is evidence for God's existence or that backs up the Biblical text. Merely spouting "no evidence" is going to do nothing for them.

robindch · 12-03-2011 10:05AM

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that you don't appreciate that Christianity is unique from other world religions and needs to be dealt with on the basis of its own criterion rather than a "they're all the same" approach.

In terms of form -- what wicknight is referring to -- christianity is very similar to many other religions, to the extent that I can't think of really anything that's unique to it at all.

In terms of content -- what you are referring to -- there are a number of items which are unique generally, or which are unique to the myriad groups and subgroups that make up the overall "religion". And there are one or two items that christianity appears to have developed before other religions did, but since the record of most previous religions has been lost or intentionally destroyed, it's impossible to be fully sure that these were original with christianity. Evolution would suggest that they probably weren't unique, but perhaps they were. We'll probably never know, and that's a pity.

philologos · 12-03-2011 10:49AM

Very Aristotelian of you robindch, but it is the content that actually matters to most Christians.

antiskeptic · 12-03-2011 12:39PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Which isn't the Greek message. So someone is believing something that is wrong, which was my original point.

Christianity say's the Zeusites belief is wrong in the same sense that a belief cigarettes provide benefits is wrong (if we can agree that the addicts sense of a cigarettes provision is lies in the relief of nicotine brings to his nicotine withdrawal pangs).

Zeus exists alright - it's just that he's a front for something else. If your only focus is on the 'front' then of course, all the gods can't be true.

All religions cannot be correct, some (if not all) believe with all sincerity in things that are fantasy.

As I say, if concentrating on the wood rather than the myriad of trees, things settle out fairly simply. It's not mans reliance on a potential fantasy that is of interest, it's the reason why he places his reliance where he does that is of interest. And those who turn to non-Christian fantasies (if they are indeed fantasies) also happen to be self-reliant when it comes to their position before God*. And those who turn to the Christian fantasy (if that is indeed a fantasy) also happen to be utterly reliant on God for their position before God.

*Where 'God' can be summarised as mans need to answer existantial questions.

Whether you attribute that to Satan or evolutionary biology doesn't change this. And at the moment evolutionary biology is doing a much better job at explaining this.

Because you yourself limit the boundaries to the realm of science - so little surprise. And the reason why you use science as a god of earth, water, sky is well explained by Christianity. Hence my lumping atheism into the same side of the wood as all the other self-reliant worldviews.

You might not think your god is just another pea in that age-old pod. But it sure is darn similar.

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 01:07PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Gah, Wicknight. It appears that you don't appreciate that Christianity is unique from other world religions and needs to be dealt with on the basis of its own criterion rather than a "they're all the same" approach.

Yes odd that

Next you will be telling me it is all true :pac:

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Zeus and God not both being true, that's true. This doesn't mean that God can't exist it just means that God and Zeus can't exist together. Not much of an argument.

Depends on what the argument is trying to be. My argument (which was actually paraphrasing Dawkins) was that humans invent religions, not that God cannot exist. The existence of thousands of mutually exclusive religions goes a long way to supporting such a claim.

Remember the God Delusion is not just about Christianity. It is about humanity, and humanities need to invent religions. The Greeks would have no doubt said that their religion is unique and should be dealt with on that basis, but to be honest after every religion tells you the exact same thing it gets rather repetitive.

Jakkass wrote: »

You also missed the point about the "no evidence" argument. It fails because there are a lot of people who believe there is evidence for God's existence or that backs up the Biblical text. Merely spouting "no evidence" is going to do nothing for them.

I don't remember 'spouting' no evidence. For a start such a claim is so subjective that it becomes rather pointless to make such a claim. The crazy man on the street who thinks the CIA are altering his brain waves claims there is evidence for this, the term 'evidence' has come to mean very little. No one believes anything for absolutely no reason.

The claim I made was that humans invent religions, these religions follow certain patterns because they come from humans (in the same way language does) and that this knowledge can be used to explain Christianity quite satisfactory without requiring in depth knowledge of Christian doctrine, in the same way you can tell Star Wars is a fictional film rather than documentary without having to see it.

As such I think it is rather ill advised of Dawkins to try and catch Christians out with their own doctrine.

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 01:11PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Very Aristotelian of you robindch, but it is the content that actually matters to most Christians.

Most Christians are Christians long before they get to the content. That is part of the process and why most Christians will find very little of interest in the God Delusion.

philologos · 12-03-2011 01:12PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The claim I made was that humans invent religions, these religions follow certain patterns because they come from humans (in the same way language does) and that this knowledge can be used to explain Christianity quite satisfactory without requiring in depth knowledge of Christian doctrine, in the same way you can tell Star Wars is a fictional film rather than documentary without having to see it.

I agree with you, but the important question that you and others ignore is "Are they all invented?"

This is where the discussion begins rather than ends.

Language is a very poor point of objection. If God is to reveal Himself to humanity it makes sense that He does it on human terms. That's simply logical. I for one actually hold to the idea that God does go beyond language, and there is far more that we actually don't know about Him above and beyond the pages of the Bible.

The Star Wars point is just absurd. There is no obvious reason to suggest that the Bible is fiction, and if one was to do so one would need to address its content.

The worst arguments against Christianity are those which don't consider its content correctly. They are more prone to failure.

Wicknight wrote: »

Most Christians are Christians long before they get to the content. That is part of the process and why most Christians will find very little of interest in the God Delusion.

I disagree with you from my own experience and from the experience of other Christians I have met. I will say that many atheists are atheists without considering the content of Christianity. One cannot be a Christian unless one understands truly what Christianity is. It is about making a commitment based on the content of Christianity. Unless you mean people who claim they are Christian without significant knowledge of Christianity?

My definition of Christianity is very minimal: Christians are those people who actively believe in the power of God most evident through creation and trust in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and commit their lives to repentance and living in response to these events.

^^ Which would require knowledge of the content of Christian faith.

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 01:30PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Christianity say's the Zeusites belief is wrong in the same sense that a belief cigarettes provide benefits is wrong (if we can agree that the addicts sense of a cigarettes provision is lies in the relief of nicotine brings to his nicotine withdrawal pangs).

Zeus exists alright - it's just that he's a front for something else. If your only focus is on the 'front' then of course, all the gods can't be true.

My focus is on human religion and why it exists. Satan did it is, I hope you appreciate, even more useless an explanation that God did it given that you have no method to explain what or how he did what even he is supposed to have done, or even why beyond generalities about him trying to deceive people.

Again you can put it down to Satan or evolutionary biology, but at the moment evolutionary biology is doing a lot better job explaining it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, if concentrating on the wood rather than the myriad of trees, things settle out fairly simply. It's not mans reliance on a potential fantasy that is of interest, it's the reason why he places his reliance where he does that is of interest. And those who turn to non-Christian fantasies (if they are indeed fantasies) also happen to be self-reliant when it comes to their position before God*. And those who turn to the Christian fantasy (if that is indeed a fantasy) also happen to be utterly reliant on God for their position before God.

A process that is explained, in increasing detail, by evolutionary biology without requiring God or Satan to be doing anything.

This argument is core to God Delusion, not some nit picking about where Jesus was born.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because you yourself limit the boundaries to the realm of science - so little surprise.

No, that isn't the reason it is doing a better job. Its doing a better job because it is providing a more detailed explanation.

Even you must admit that the "Satan did it" explanation explains very very little in any detail and raises a lot more questions than it answers.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the reason why you use science as a god of earth, water, sky is well explained by Christianity.

Your definition of 'well explained' and mine seem vastly different.

I imagine the explanation you have in your head as to why I do this would probably be very general and used to explain a vast array of things that counter Christian belief in a dismissive rather than detailed manner, such as the catch all 'You are rebelling against God' or 'You are absent from God'

Again I hope you appreciate why these are not explaining anything particularly well in contrast to a detailed theory of human psychology and neurology.

Can you give examples of when the last time the Christian explanation was used by psychologists to do anything?

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 01:47PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with you, but the important question that you and others ignore is "Are they all invented?"

This is where the discussion begins rather than ends.

I would put it more as "Has any religion so far demonstrated to any relevant standard that they are not invented given that these theories explain them all pretty well"

When they do everyone can look at what they have come up with. But so far that hasn't happened. Christian for example relies on the same old arguments that every other religion does to justify its truth.

You have to appreciate Jakkass that every religion claims to be the true one and the one that is actually real.

Jakkass wrote: »

Language is a very poor point of objection.

What was my objection in relation to language?

Jakkass wrote: »

The Star Wars point is just absurd. There is no obvious reason to suggest that the Bible is fiction, and if one was to do so one would need to address its content.

My point wasn't that there is an argument that the authors of the Bible meant it as fiction. My point was that it is just another holy book. If you are happy that holy books in general are made up nonsense, then you can easily conclude so is Christianity, just like if you are happy with the idea that films are not real you can conclude that about Star Wars without having to see it.

Jakkass wrote: »

The worst arguments against Christianity are those which don't consider its content correctly. They are more prone to failure.

Failure of what? Convincing Christians it isn't true? I think that boat has long sailed. If there was genuinely some massive gotcha in the Bible that demonstrated to Christians that the whole thing was a lie (like a foot note saying Ha Ha Fooled ya) I think it would have been discovered by now.

The content is really rather irrelevant. It is just another collection of supernatural stories like every other religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you from my own experience and from the experience of other Christians I have met. I will say that many atheists are atheists without considering the content of Christianity.

I've no problem with you saying that. I would say a lot of them are atheists without them considering the content of Ziggurionain as well. Again once someone realizes that religion is a product of the human mind and evolved instincts it really doesn't matter a whole lot to study every single religion and their claims. I think if Christianity had a real argument for why they are the real religion that didn't rely on the claims every other religion makes, they would have made it by now.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is about making a commitment based on the content of Christianity. Unless you mean people who claim they are Christian without significant knowledge of Christianity?

The over all 'message' of Christian can (and often is) written on a napkin. That is to say the bits that are required to appeal to our sense of desire for supernatural model of the world.

Christians tend to study the detail of the Bible long after they have decided they are Christians. As such it is extremely doubtful that highlighting a single issue or problem in any of the context is going to do much about that.

But to be honest that is some what beside my point, which is an understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology is all that is required ti dismiss Christianity, not an knowledge of the particular doctrine and stories of Chrisitanity.

If anyone is concerned that doing that they will miss the possibility, as slim as it is, that one of the human religions actually is real I'm sure the worshippers of that religion will make a mighty song and dance about it if they ever manage to demonstrate that this is actually the case to standards that would satisfy someone convinced by the God Delusion. So far that hasn't happened.

philologos · 12-03-2011 01:55PM

I'm going to cut this short to get to the main essence of your post.

Wicknight wrote: »

You have to appreciate Jakkass that every religion claims to be the true one and the one that is actually real.

Each on a different basis.

Wicknight wrote: »

My point wasn't that there is an argument that the authors of the Bible meant it as fiction. My point was that it is just another holy book. If you are happy that holy books in general are made up nonsense, then you can easily conclude so is Christianity, just like if you are happy with the idea that films are not real you can conclude that about Star Wars without having to see it.

I disagree with your approach. I think we should be willing to investigate. Indeed, I'm willing to look into other philosophies and beliefs unfamiliar to my own. Indeed I have to as a part of my study at university.

Wicknight wrote: »

The content is really rather irrelevant. It is just another collection of supernatural stories like every other religion.

See above. I think your approach is all wrong. Claiming they are all the same is just useless. One never actually argues effectively against the belief actually held in the absence of sufficient knowledge.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think if Christianity had a real argument for why they are the real religion that didn't rely on the claims every other religion makes, they would have made it by now.

It has been made, its just also easily ignored.

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians tend to study the detail of the Bible long after they have decided they are Christians. As such it is extremely doubtful that highlighting a single issue or problem in any of the context is going to do much about that.

I don't know where you are basing this on. It was as I was reading the Bible that I decided to become a Christian personally.

Wicknight wrote: »

But to be honest that is some what beside my point, which is an understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology is all that is required ti dismiss Christianity, not an knowledge of the particular doctrine and stories of Chrisitanity.

Neither dismiss Christianity in any meaningful way.

Wicknight wrote: »

If anyone is concerned that doing that they will miss the possibility, as slim as it is, that one of the human religions actually is real I'm sure the worshippers of that religion will make a mighty song and dance about it if they ever manage to demonstrate that this is actually the case to standards that would satisfy someone convinced by the God Delusion. So far that hasn't happened.

I don't know if it is slim. Unless you are assuming that all are equivalent, which may actually change on investigation.

I personally atheists could have posited a better argument than that made in The God Delusion. Where we disagree is in that I think that if Dawkins had actually made a better effort to familiarise himself with what he is criticising he would have done a better job.

Fanny Cradock · 12-03-2011 02:16PM

robindch wrote: »

Evolution would suggest that they probably weren't unique

No. You would suggest such a thing. That's why you have to backtrack from your statement immediately.

Morbert · 12-03-2011 04:00PM

himnextdoor wrote: »

But that's not really a problem since there is no requirement that each 'day' should even be the same length. For instance, on the sixth day God created Adam and Eve but before Eve was created God had created and brought all the beasts and fowl of the world which He brought to Adam to be named. Day six simply cannot have been a twenty-four hour period. And if Lilith was Adam's first wife then day six must have been a very long day indeed.

It seems more reasonable to interpret the story as: First, God made the heaven and Earth, etc., however long that took and that was the first part of the project done. Second, or next, the next part of the project was completed, however long that took. And so on.

I think that the ordering of the appearance of animals is only important if you try to interpret the story as a recipe rather than simply as a list. An alphabetical list of ingredients for a chocolate cake would have 'chocolate' before 'flour' whereas in a recipe 'flour' would appear before 'chocolate'. An alphabetical list of ingredients for a chocolate cake does not invalidate the existence of chocolate cakes.

Again, it seems more reasonable to view the sequence as a list rather than as a recipe.

Wouldn't this allow creation to approximate science?

If you view the sequence as an arbitrary list, then you aren't interpreting Genesis as a factual account of what happened.

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 05:10PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Each on a different basis.

Which is not particularly relevant to the central argument. Think of it like mediums. They all claim to talk to the dead, they all claim to have this power and use it in different ways. Do I have to investigate the claims of all mediums to conclude they are making it up? Or can I simply look at the existence of mediums, look at human psychology explaining why people fall for them, and conclude it is a scam?

An individual medium might claim that is unfair, that you haven't investigated his particular special ability. But frankly that wouldn't be enough to make most people think they are being too dismissive of mediums.

Likewise with religion. I appreciate that you genuinely believe that the specific claims unique to Christianity some how demonstrate something profoundly different about Christianity. But they don't.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with your approach.

I imagine you only disagree with my approach when applied to Christianity Would you disagree with it when applied to any other set of claims where the vast majority are considered false even by believers (such as mediums or alternative medicine)

Jakkass wrote: »

I think we should be willing to investigate.

Well I've nothing against anyone investigating something they are interested in. What I disagree with is the idea that you have investigate every single claim of any group before you can dismiss the groups as whole based on a perfectly sound alternative theory that explains all of them.

Jakkass wrote: »

See above. I think your approach is all wrong. Claiming they are all the same is just useless. One never actually argues effectively against the belief actually held in the absence of sufficient knowledge.

This is where we differ. You seem to think that to argue against Christianity you have to argue against the specific claims it makes. You really dont since Christianity fits into the same pattern as all religions and thus can be easily explained by the general notion of religion as a product of the evolution of the human mind.

Equally I don't think arguing the specifics of Christianity really would do very much. I've had many discussions with about the specifics of say the resurrection and I found you applying logic and rational that would seem, even to you I'd imagine, ridiculous if applied to other instances of supernatural claims.

Jakkass wrote: »

It has been made, its just also easily ignored.

Now come on Jakkass, one think you can't say about the atheists on this website is that we ignore things. We happily and whole heartily debate with you guys over any and every claim or doctrine you present until often the Christian or theist leaves.

Post the case for why Chrisitanity is unique among religions on the A&A forum and you will get 15 atheists within a few minutes more than happy to critique and dismantle all aspects of that claim.

Nothing is ignore. The case is just not strong enough. Christianity is not unique among religions. It is not unexplainable by evolutionary psychology.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know where you are basing this on. It was as I was reading the Bible that I decided to become a Christian personally.

I'm basing it the various studies that show atheists know more Biblical facts than most Christians, and that less than 10% of Christians have read the entire Bible, a statistic I've seen thrown around the place including on evangelical sites who wish to tackle this issue with better Bible studies.

You may be the exception, though I seem to remember you telling me you read the New Testament first and not necessarily from start to end in order, but perhaps that was another poster.

Jakkass wrote: »

Neither dismiss Christianity in any meaningful way.

They do. They explain why you would believe the stories in the Bible, why you would see agency in nature (how many Christians argue that a creator diety 'makes sense'), why you would feel better believing this stuff than not etc etc.

There is very little in Christianity that cannot be explained by these theories, theories that also explain most other religions. So much so that Christians have started embracing this as some how part of God's plan, like they did with evolution itself when the facts became overwhelming.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if it is slim. Unless you are assuming that all are equivalent, which may actually change on investigation.

I've investigated Christianity, it doesn't change. But by all means feel free to start a thread explaining how Christianity is some how fundamentally different to other religions (I don't mean in irrelevant specifics such as how many other religions have a leader called Jesus). Start it on the A&A forum and it will be anything but ignored :P

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally atheists could have posited a better argument than that made in The God Delusion.

I personally don't think any argument would have any particular effect on you, so that is not really that relevant. I've seen how you deal with the criticism and critiques of the justifications of your faith.

Jakkass wrote: »

Where we disagree is in that I think that if Dawkins had actually made a better effort to familiarise himself with what he is criticising he would have done a better job.

Better job at what exactly? Convincing you that your faith is wrong? Is that even possible?

Like I said earlier focusing on Dawkins short comings in theology seems little more than an excuse to ignore his wider arguments, because Christianity doesn't have an answer to these. Christianity relies purely on the notion that the claims make sense to Christians.

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 05:15PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No. You would suggest such a thing. That's why you have to backtrack from your statement immediately.

No, evolution would suggest that. It cannot prove it, which is what Robins last statement (which you misinterpreted as backtracking) clarified.

dvae · 12-03-2011 05:30PM

i haven't read the last 105 replies so forgive me if this point has already been mentioned.

if the Genesis account is only a myth, why did Jesus have to die?
did Jesus not die for Adams first sin when Satan deceived him in the
garden?
from my understanding Jesus death was given as a ransom to Satan
for the 1st sin in Genesis.

PDN · 12-03-2011 05:35PM

dvae wrote: »

did Jesus not die for Adams first sin when Satan deceived him in the
garden?

No

from my understanding Jesus death was given as a ransom to Satan
for the 1st sin in Genesis

Your understanding is wrong. Jesus' death was a ransom for the sins you and I have committed.

himnextdoor · 12-03-2011 05:39PM

Morbert wrote: »

If you view the sequence as an arbitrary list, then you aren't interpreting Genesis as a factual account of what happened.

That's right of course but I don't think the Bible itself makes any claims of scientific validity. And I don't think it was meant to.

The account of Creation week simply sets the scene, provides a framework, for the development of a particular moral code and attempts to do a number of things. It attempts to demonstrate the power and supremacy of a God who clearly is not an entity to be taken lightly and this in turn provides a kind of protection for religious advocates. Also, it attempts to explain, in layman's terms, those things that are not attributable or knowable to man. (At least the men of that time.)

But I say again that without religion or a common belief system of some sort, society would be less cohesive. Rightly or wrongly, religion binds people.

In truth, I believe that the fundamental role of religion is to instill the fear of God into those men who rule in an attempt protect those (shamens, priests, etc.) from the harsh reality of nature. Only the strong survive? Not any more. Thanks to religion, even the weak, the feeble, the unfit can survive.

philologos · 12-03-2011 05:45PM

I'm going to cut out a good deal of this again Wicknight just to make sure that we won't be writing essays to one another.
Edit: It's still an essay oh well :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is not particularly relevant to the central argument.

The content is hugely relevant. There are distinct reasons why I believe in Christianity in the Christian text itself based on Jesus life, death and Resurrection. I can safely say from my perspective that in the research that I've done I've not encountered anything that parallels this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Likewise with religion. I appreciate that you genuinely believe that the specific claims unique to Christianity some how demonstrate something profoundly different about Christianity. But they don't.

They do certainly, the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus bring radically new things to the table as far as I see it.

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine you only disagree with my approach when applied to Christianity Would you disagree with it when applied to any other set of claims where the vast majority are considered false even by believers (such as mediums or alternative medicine)

Actually I apply this principle to my approach to Islam. I don't claim to know as much as other Muslims about the Qur'an. I know something about it from my reading, but I don't know as much. Therefore I won't be arguing about Islam until I am at a good enough standard to do so. All I can do is make basic comparisons between one religion and another.

As for mediums - I personally believe that there may be truth value to some of it, but that it would be considered something to be avoided by Christians for spiritual reasons.

Alternative medicine deals with the distinctly material. I don't know enough about it to comment I would have to do adequate research into homoeopathy. For the time being I'll stick to the regular medicine first.

Wicknight wrote: »

What I disagree with is the idea that you have investigate every single claim of any group before you can dismiss the groups as whole based on a perfectly sound alternative theory that explains all of them.

You can disagree with it as much as you like. I personally have found a direct correlation between the amount of knowledge about Christianity and the quality of the argument from any given atheist. That's all I'm going to say.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is where we differ. You seem to think that to argue against Christianity you have to argue against the specific claims it makes. You really dont since Christianity fits into the same pattern as all religions and thus can be easily explained by the general notion of religion as a product of the evolution of the human mind.

To argue effectively. Religion as being a product of the evolution of the human mind doesn't particularly bother me because one can accept that there may have been reason for it being such a product. Namely to communicate with God.

It's not the devastating argument that you think it is.

Wicknight wrote: »

I've had many discussions with about the specifics of say the resurrection and I found you applying logic and rational that would seem, even to you I'd imagine, ridiculous if applied to other instances of supernatural claims.

The logic that atheists have presented on the Resurrection has been non-existent.

Wicknight wrote: »

Now come on Jakkass, one think you can't say about the atheists on this website is that we ignore things. We happily and whole heartily debate with you guys over any and evenly claim or doctrine you present until often the Christian or theist leaves.

I'm afraid I can. It's called moving the goalposts when an argument is presented. It isn't an intellectual issue really. I can present all the arguments I like for Christianity, but actually it is that you have no desire to even consider Christianity as being true, therefore you won't. I can only hope that one day you will get that desire.

A major part of my posting isn't really to satisfy my own academic smarts its that I hope to improve my argument (off boards) in such a way that I might be able to help others consider who Jesus is, and accept Him as their Saviour. I hope this for you too.

Wicknight wrote: »

Post the case for why Chrisitanity is unique among religions on the A&A forum and you will get 15 atheists within a few minutes more than happy to critique and dismantle all aspects of that claim.

You will get 15 atheists who aren't willing to even consider the idea shrug it off in many cases. The above paragraph that I posted is pretty much true in every cases.

Wicknight wrote: »

Nothing is ignore. The case is just not strong enough. Christianity is not unique among religions. It is not unexplainable by evolutionary psychology.

As I've mentioned already. Even if evolutionary psychology did explain why we have the faculties for religious belief, it doesn't explain why we have them. It is possible that they are there for a reason, to know and enter into a living relationship with God.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm basing it the various studies that show atheists know more Biblical facts than most Christians, and that less than 10% of Christians have read the entire Bible, a statistic I've seen thrown around the place including on evangelical sites who wish to tackle this issue with better Bible studies.

US statistics. Many of the questions weren't about the Bible or Christianity. I did the quiz and I got 100% (15/15).

Wicknight wrote: »

You may be the exception, though I seem to remember you telling me you read the New Testament first and not necessarily from start to end in order, but perhaps that was another poster.

I read from Genesis - Revelation.

Wicknight wrote: »

They do. They explain why you would believe the stories in the Bible, why you would see agency in nature (how many Christians argue that a creator diety 'makes sense'), why you would feel better believing this stuff than not etc etc.

I believe in God simply because it is reasonable to. I have seen considerable changes in my life since I accepted Christianity. Also by the by, the truth is the truth. Jesus doesn't promise us better lives in this existence by becoming Christians, indeed for many it becomes more and more challenging.

Wicknight wrote: »

Better job at what exactly? Convincing you that your faith is wrong? Is that even possible?

Like all Christians I have my moments of doubt and I have to mull things over from time to time. Its not just that I have a blind irrational faith as maybe you would like to think.

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I said earlier focusing on Dawkins short comings in theology seems little more than an excuse to ignore his wider arguments, because Christianity doesn't have an answer to these. Christianity relies purely on the notion that the claims make sense to Christians.

As far as I'm concerned Dawkins' argument doesn't pertain to Christianity if it actually doesn't deal with Christianity. It's just a hollow over-generalised argument with little or no significance to it.

dvae · 12-03-2011 06:17PM

Jesus' death was a ransom for the sins you and I have committed

True but, where do you think sin started?
God crated man sinless and perfect. Man was never meant to die but live
on earth forever.Yes Jesus died for our sins but, our sins started back in Eden. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

himnextdoor · 12-03-2011 06:34PM

Jakkass wrote: »

As I've mentioned already. Even if evolutionary psychology did explain why we have the faculties for religious belief, it doesn't explain why we have them.

But it does. We have them because they have a positive effect on the chances of survival of a species. Natural selection entirely accounts for the tendency of humans to adopt religion.

The fear of God is a more effective tool of preservation than respect for life.

Fanny Cradock · 12-03-2011 06:37PM

dvae wrote: »

God crated man [...] perfect. Man was never meant to die but live
on earth forever.

That is debatable. It seems to me that creation was always going to be a staged project - from creation to new heavens and new earth - and that death must have been somehow intertwined with this world irrespective of the fall.

Zombrex · 12-03-2011 07:10PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The content is hugely relevant. There are distinct reasons why I believe in Christianity in the Christian text itself based on Jesus life, death and Resurrection. I can safely say from my perspective that in the research that I've done I've not encountered anything that parallels this.

The fact that you picked Christianity rather than Hindu because something about the Christian story appealed to you more is rather irrelevant to the evolutionary explanation for religion and to Dawkins arguments.

If you talk to a Hindu person he may well say that there was something in Hindu that just made much more sense to him than Christianity. Same with Scientology, Islam etc etc.

That doesn't mean there is something special about Christianity, just that you think there is. The world is full of people who think their religion is special and makes sense where as viewing other religions as nonsense.

We know what does and doesn't appeal to people in terms of making sense. We know why that is the case. We know that all religions on Earth follow this pattern.

Really else is there. Its like saying we know how to trick the human eyes into seeing a 3D picture and you asking well that doesn't explain Avatar unless you specifically explain how they did that specific movie.

Jakkass wrote: »

To argue effectively.

Again argue what effectively? That there is an evolutionary explanation for religion that doesn't require the existence of supernatural agents for us to think there are?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not the devastating argument that you think it is.

It is as soon as you realize that you are just inserting 'Maybe God did it anyway' as a way of keeping belief in God alive, not because that actually explains anything or is necessary.

That is one of the most common reasons people give for atheism, that they realized they were simply inserting God not because it explained anything, but because it was pleasing to them to imagine he still was part of something and because they still have a strong desire for it to be true.

It has been likened to realizing after years of deluding yourself, that your wife is actually been cheating on you and all the reasons you have been telling yourself to explain away things just have nothing to do with reality.

Jakkass wrote: »

The logic that atheists have presented on the Resurrection has been non-existent.

Atheists have given plenty of other examples of where people have died for something that wasn't true. They have also presented examples where people have been mistaken or lied about supernatural events.

The idea that the faith of the early Christians demonstrates the validity of the resurrection is therefore either invalid or must be applied to justify any number of other religions. Which it isn't, it is only used by Christians to justify their religion's claims.

Again it is when people realize this and say 'Nope, can't keep doing this' that they move towards atheism. It is those people that the God Delusion is written for.

If you are still convinced by these sort of arguments then the God Delusion won't have any effect on you until you are prepared to let go of them.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can present all the arguments I like for Christianity, but actually it is that you have no desire to even consider Christianity as being true, therefore you won't.

This is the theist excuse for everything, the fault can't possibly be in our justification for our faith it has to be in the misguided hearts of those who 'refuse' to believe, as if not believing in supernatural stories was some sort of act of rebellion against the obvious truth of their particular religion.

All religions claim this. The Muslims claim that about you guys. And again evolutionary psychology explains why.

Again you have to realize that this is just an excuse to justify faith, rather than a sound argument. When you do you are able to consider atheism.

Jakkass wrote: »

As I've mentioned already. Even if evolutionary psychology did explain why we have the faculties for religious belief, it doesn't explain why we have them.

Yes it does. It explains them within the context of survival.

You can't prove God didn't for some unknown reason, set it up that way anyway. But to be honest only people heavily invested in their faith seem to find that argument in anyway reasonable. You can also insert it in front of anything and everything. Once you realize that you will find the argument far less convincing.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe in God simply because it is reasonable to.

And that is explained by evolutionary biology.

Does that prove God doesn't exist? Nope.
Does it provide a sound theory for why you would think God exists and is reasonable even if he doesn't exist. Yes.
That also explains every other religion? Yes.

Again what theists do at this stage is say 'That doesn't prove my religion X is wrong, it could be that deity Y did this anyway'

When you realize that problem with that argument you will be open to being an atheist.

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned Dawkins' argument doesn't pertain to Christianity if it actually doesn't deal with Christianity. It's just a hollow over-generalised argument with little or no significance to it.

Thats probably why Dawkins didn't write the God Delusion for you.

But if you are genuinely interested in trying to bring people to Christianity you are going to have to come up with something better.

The arguments that you use to justify your faith are not convincing to a lot of people who see them for what they are.

himnextdoor · 12-03-2011 08:12PM

dvae wrote: »

God crated man sinless and perfect. Man was never meant to die but live on earth forever.

God created man corruptible and disobedient. According to Genesis, when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge he became "like the Gods" by knowing good and evil and the reason he was evicted from the garden of Eden was because God didn't want him to eat from the tree of everlasting life.

It would have been a different story if Adam had eaten from the tree of everlasting life before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

himnextdoor · 13-03-2011 12:09AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually I apply this principle to my approach to Islam. I don't claim to know as much as other Muslims about the Qur'an. I know something about it from my reading, but I don't know as much. Therefore I won't be arguing about Islam until I am at a good enough standard to do so. All I can do is make basic comparisons between one religion and another.

But that's the point. You were labeled a Christian before you knew what a Christian is and it is the same with Muslims. And Jews. Religious adherents are like loyal football fans; they stand by their team through thick and thin and this behaviour emanates from a need to belong.

This need to belong gives rise to morality, loyalty, protectiveness, religion and thus provides a glue for society on the one hand while seperating societies into opposing teams on the other.

PDN · 13-03-2011 01:07AM

himnextdoor wrote: »

But that's the point. You were labeled a Christian before you knew what a Christian is and it is the same with Muslims. And Jews. Religious adherents are like loyal football fans; they stand by their team through thick and thin and this behaviour emanates from a need to belong.

What someone else labels Jakkass as is irrelevant. It is how we view ourselves, and how God views us that is important. Judaism is primarily an ethnic identity - so confusing it with what makes someone on this board a Christian is very inaccurate.

There are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who convert from one religious faith to another. Such conversions often result in ostracism by friends and family, so can hardly be ascribed to a need to belong.

I myself was an atheist who converted to one form of Christianity, and then left that denomination because of a disagreement over content. Rather than "needing to belong" I find that my faith helps me think independently of peer pressure - much more so than when I was an atheist.

Improbable · 13-03-2011 01:21AM

PDN wrote: »

What someone else labels Jakkass as is irrelevant. It is how we view ourselves, and how God views us that is important. Judaism is primarily an ethnic identity - so confusing it with what makes someone on this board a Christian is very inaccurate.

There are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who convert from one religious faith to another. Such conversions often result in ostracism by friends and family, so can hardly be ascribed to a need to belong.

I myself was an atheist who converted to one form of Christianity, and then left that denomination because of a disagreement over content. Rather than "needing to belong" I find that my faith helps me think independently of peer pressure - much more so than when I was an atheist.

But is it not the case that generally speaking for the majority of the world's population that they follow the religion that they were brought up in as children, especially in countries where a single religion is much more prevalent than others? So how do you address the issue that for those people, their religious beliefs are a product of their localisation rather than one of choice?

Also, I can imagine that gathering any sort of hard statistical data on religiosity and more specifically, conversion statistics would be quite difficult. Do you have any source for these hundreds of millions?

strobe · 13-03-2011 01:24AM

PDN wrote: »

I myself was an atheist who converted to one form of Christianity

I know this is a personal question but if you wouldn't mind could you expand on that? Give a few details as to how the 'transition' happened, the background and what not?

himnextdoor · 13-03-2011 02:09AM

PDN wrote: »

What someone else labels Jakkass as is irrelevant. It is how we view ourselves, and how God views us that is important.

Children are born, they are baptised, they are surrounded by religious iconography, they are confirmed; are you seriously suggesting that these things have no influence on a person's religious identity?

PDN wrote: »

Judaism is primarily an ethnic identity - so confusing it with what makes someone on this board a Christian is very inaccurate.

Are you seriously suggesting that Judaism is not a religion? That Jews are not raised to be Jews?

PDN wrote: »

There are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who convert from one religious faith to another. Such conversions often result in ostracism by friends and family, so can hardly be ascribed to a need to belong.

Yes it can. How can you seperate 'feeling like you don't belong' from 'a need to belong'?

PDN wrote: »

I myself was an atheist who converted to one form of Christianity, and then left that denomination because of a disagreement over content. Rather than "needing to belong" I find that my faith helps me think independently of peer pressure - much more so than when I was an atheist.

Why would anyone that doesn't have a need to belong go to the trouble to join or leave any club? You left a denomination over a disagreement over content which is the same as saying you felt that you didn't belong to a group that holds certain views.

Are you now part of a group with whom you are in full agreement? That's not even faith, it's window-shopping.

Fanny Cradock · 13-03-2011 02:57AM

himnextdoor wrote: »

Children are born, they are baptised, they are surrounded by religious iconography, they are confirmed; are you seriously suggesting that these things have no influence on a person's religious identity?

Are you seriously suggesting that Judaism is not a religion? That Jews are not raised to be Jews?

In the kindest possible manner, I'm going to suggest you reread what PDN said. Then apply this to what you wrote. Hopefully you will then see that you aren't responding to what was written.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yes it can. How can you seperate 'feeling like you don't belong' from 'a need to belong'?

Because they are two different things. Is the this not obvious?

If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

Comments