Why do you bother?

iUseVi

WARNING: This post is primarily aimed at atheists.

A lot of debating/arguing goes on especially between the Christian forum and here. Sometimes I get confused as to which one I am in, as there seems to be equal numbers of christians and atheists in both. :rolleyes:

I guess I am just interested in accumulating peoples various opinions on this question. Why do you debate with Christians?

It seems to me unlikely that any logical arguments will make even the slightest dent in the Christian's "bible defence". Even the most foolproof logic can be easily ignored by any manner of means, by the most faithful.

For example:

Word redefinition - "Yes, your argument is sound, I just have a different definition of that word!"
Biblical inerrancy - "You're an atheist, your interpretation of the bible is obviously just wrong."
We all know the bible is entirely free from any of these:
# errors of any kind
# contradictions
# absurdities
And if in doubt, just lie for Jesus!!

OK, OK, this post did not start out its life as a Christian basher.

My point is we all know it is highly unlikely that a Christian is going to change their mind on a topic. After all they have so much to lose. If you can prove to them that even one aspect of their religion is absurd and/or sadistic, you undermine the whole thing.
So it is hardly surprising that they would not give up easily.

So why debate them? Personally I do it mostly because it is a lot of fun, but also I maintain the naive notion that I may be able to convince them of their error. (despite what I just said)

Thoughts anyone? (besides the fact that you think I am a rambling madman please!:eek:)

biko

I don't try to convince them of their errors as I cannot be 100% they are wrong. I personally don't believe in deities, belief being the operating word.

I debate them on points of interest rather than their entire system.

Zombrex

Hearing Wolfsbane excuse the genocide in the Old Testament, because the people were "wicked" and turned away God's "forgiveness" (so he ordered his chosen people to butcher them all) I do wonder what is the point.

There is no getting through to people like that.

Hivemind187

Personally I usually do it about social issues but from time to time I have got stuck into a theological/scientific debate - mainly because it amuses me to watch the lengths some people will go to to remain ignorant.

Plus, if you ever want to keep your ability to construct or deconstruct an argument there are no finer opponents than those you find in the atheism/deism debate.

adamd164

It's somewhere in between attempting to convince them of their error and just sheer enjoyment. It's a good exercise in sharpening my wit, refining my arguments, and improving my debating skills. I would find it difficult not to debate people whose views are so opposed to my own.

This, by the way, holds for all religious people, not just Christians.

adamd164

biko wrote: »

I don't try to convince them of their errors as I cannot be 100% they are wrong.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not (in my case anyway) an attempt to "disprove" the existence of their deity, or any such thing. What I find fault with is placing one's faith in doctrine, in spite of the devastating lack of evidence. I'd never tell someone I knew that their god didn't exist; as the very basis of my argument is that they cannot claim to know that he/she/it does!

Dades

I only debate with Christians here, as if they are here, they are obviously up for a debate.

Its natural for people with diametrically opposing opinions to want to engage.

Galvasean

I'm going to paraphrase something from Thank You For Smoking. The idea of a debate is not to convince your opponent, but the audience.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm going to paraphrase something from Thank You For Smoking. The idea of a debate is not to convince your opponent, but the audience.

A good point. This is why I'm engaged in the never-ending creationism debate on the Christianity forum. I feel the need to hold back the flow of misinformation and unreason. There's guys on that thread that will never allow themselves to accept my world view. They need God and an afterlife to survive.

That said- I generally fall short of ever dismissing people's beliefs so long as they aren't actively trying to dismiss science in order to push their views upon other people.

Splendour

I see the vote for 'trying to convince them of their error' is winning.

This business of why athiests bother is something which intrigues me.
Christians have a very good reason to 'convince' athiests of the 'error' of their ways (whether you believe it or not is irrelevant for this discussion).
Wheras athiests have no particular reason to 'convince' Christians of their 'erroneous' ways.


Why bother indeed...

adamd164

There's a certain arrogance in those sentiments. Religious people the world over attempt desperately to carry the tradition of faith into the next generation: a generation which includes the children of non-theists. Presumably you'll find that most atheists are not too pleased by this fact.

pH

Splendour wrote: »

I see the vote for 'trying to convince them of their error' is winning.

This business of why athiests bother is something which intrigues me.
Christians have a very good reason to 'convince' athiests of the 'error' of their ways (whether you believe it or not is irrelevant for this discussion).
Wheras athiests have no particular reason to 'convince' Christians of their 'erroneous' ways.


Why bother indeed...

Why bother??????????????????

Well let's just see what the religious have been getting up to in the last few days:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/04/tonyblair.religion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3677129.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7276863.stm
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/harry_phibbs/2008/04/thy_will_be_done.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/01/usa.religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/05/evolution.controversiesinscience

That's the last few days remember.

I could go on but when religious folks are happy to traipse to church, praise their God and keep the rest private then I'd agree, but religion is primarily about forcing others to bow down before your God, or at the very least obey his rules.

They want their religious laws forced on everyone through state laws, they want their dogma taught in schools, they want religious oversight in hospitals, they want their God praised in our constitution, they want the Irish taxpayers to bail out one of the richest organisations in the world (the Catholic church) because of their paedophile priests (who they protected for years). For years their sexual hangups oppressed us all with their petty obsessions about what is put on penises and where penises are stuck.

They would love nothing more that a return to subjugating women to child bearing machines with no access to family planning, in fact they'd rather the poor in Africa died of AIDS than had access to contraception. It was 1985 before the politicians had the balls to fight the Catholic church here and allow condoms be sold without a prescription.

Make no mistake there is nothing benign or charitable about religion. It is a self-serving system of oppression, run by small minded sex obsessed hypocrites, who given half the chance would drag us all back to Ireland of the 50's.

And you ask why bother?

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

Why bother??????????????????

Well let's just see what the religious have been getting up to in the last few days:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/04/tonyblair.religion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3677129.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7276863.stm
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/harry_phibbs/2008/04/thy_will_be_done.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/01/usa.religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/05/evolution.controversiesinscience

That's the last few days remember.

I could go on but when religious folks are happy to traipse to church, praise their God and keep the rest private then I'd agree, but religion is primarily about forcing others to bow down before your God, or at the very least obey his rules.

They want their religious laws forced on everyone through state laws, they want their dogma taught in schools, they want religious oversight in hospitals, they want their God praised in our constitution, they want the Irish taxpayers to bail out one of the richest organisations in the world (the Catholic church) because of their paedophile priests (who they protected for years). For years their sexual hangups oppressed us all with their petty obsessions about what is put on penises and where penises are stuck.

They would love nothing more that a return to subjugating women to child bearing machines with no access to family planning, in fact they'd rather the poor in Africa died of AIDS than had access to contraception. It was 1985 before the politicians had the balls to fight the Catholic church here and allow condoms be sold without a prescription.

Make no mistake there is nothing benign or charitable about religion. It is a self-serving system of oppression, run by small minded sex obsessed hypocrites, who given half the chance would drag us all back to Ireland of the 50's.

And you ask why bother?

Most of what you describe above is done in the name of various religions and yet in defiance of their core philopsophies. Religions themselves aren't really the problem. People will do what they want in the name of the current control system. Religions have been subverted to allow the powerful to continue doing what they always have done- to suppress the weak.

We could use a perversion of science to do the same thing.

Religions, as much as I think they are incorrect- have many positive qualities which are sadly overshadowed by the wrongs that are perpetrated in their names. Perhaps morality can survive in the absence of some kinda of cosmic karma or punishment but hope and life purpose would be a stretch for many.

pH

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Most of what you describe above is done in the name of various religions and yet in defiance of their core philopsophies. Religions themselves aren't really the problem. People will do what they want in the name of the current control system.

That's funny - you say 'most', I ask you merely to point out just one thing that I describe above that is in defiance of that religion's core philosophy. Just one out of:

• They want their religious laws forced on everyone through state laws
• they want their dogma taught in schools
• they want religious oversight in hospitals
• they want their God praised in our constitution
• they want the Irish taxpayers to bail out one of the richest organisations in the world (the Catholic church) because of their paedophile priests (who they protected for years)
• For years their sexual hangups oppressed us all with their petty obsessions about what is put on penises and where penises are stuck.
• They would love nothing more that a return to subjugating women to child bearing machines with no access to family planning, in fact they'd rather the poor in Africa died of AIDS than had access to contraception.

We could use a perversion of science to do the same thing.

No you couldn't. You're going to tell me that Boyle's Law drives you to put people in a pressure vessel and heat it? Our understanding of gravity could lead people to drop rocks on people? Rubbish.

Religions, as much as I think they are incorrect- have many positive qualities which are sadly overshadowed by the wrongs that are perpetrated in their names.

They must be keeping these qualities under a bushel, I've never found one. The sole purpose of religion is to propagate that religion. Nothing is every done outside of this except when individuals in power in the organisation enjoy their power by abusing others. It's either self interest/propagation or abuse, nothing else.

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

Why bother??????????????????

Well let's just see what the religious have been getting up to in the last few days:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/04/tonyblair.religion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3677129.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7276863.stm
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/harry_phibbs/2008/04/thy_will_be_done.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/01/usa.religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/05/evolution.controversiesinscience

That's the last few days remember.

Let's just see what footballers have been up to in the last while:

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2008/0226/colea.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/newcastle/article3103584.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3073171.ece
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-fc-news/2008/03/05/tim-cahill-apologises-over-handcuff-goal-celebration-100252-20560110/

You rant is so full of horrid generalisations - mostly aimed at the Catholic Church - that it is without merit. The links you provide are hardly damning incitements against Christians.

You do a wonderful job appearing hostile and bitter in your post.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's just see what footballers have been up to in the last while:

And if footballers ever start lecturing me on morals, or wanting their 'way of life' respected and protected from criticism or want representation on School boards, or want a clause in the constitution about how their game is special or want to dictate just what a poor sub-Saharan subsidence farmer can put on his penis then your list will come in very handy and I'll post it on the soccer forum. Until then I fail to see its relevance.

You rant is so full of horrid generalisations - mostly aimed at the Catholic Church - that it is without merit.

No my rant is about why *I* bother. I'm glad you don't like it, I must be doing something right.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

That's funny - you say 'most', I ask you merely to point out just one thing that I describe above that is in defiance of that religion's core philosophy. Just one out of:

• They want their religious laws forced on everyone through state laws
• they want their dogma taught in schools
• they want religious oversight in hospitals
• they want their God praised in our constitution
• they want the Irish taxpayers to bail out one of the richest organisations in the world (the Catholic church) because of their paedophile priests (who they protected for years)
• For years their sexual hangups oppressed us all with their petty obsessions about what is put on penises and where penises are stuck.
• They would love nothing more that a return to subjugating women to child bearing machines with no access to family planning, in fact they'd rather the poor in Africa died of AIDS than had access to contraception.

The last three are pretty anti-christian. Particularly the protection of the pedophile priests. The others could probably be debated on grounds found within the scope of christian belief.

pH wrote: »

No you couldn't. You're going to tell me that Boyle's Law drives you to put people in a pressure vessel and heat it? Our understanding of gravity could lead people to drop rocks on people? Rubbish.

Kindly don't be so entirely dismissive of my views. You are over-simplifying my point. How about Eugenics? Science has also been used to justify racism, sexism, social inequality. Perversions of science. Religion has been used in a similar fashion.

pH wrote: »

They must be keeping these qualities under a bushel, I've never found one. The sole purpose of religion is to propagate that religion. Nothing is every done outside of this except when individuals in power in the organisation enjoy their power by abusing others. It's either self interest/propagation or abuse, nothing else.

Religions give purpose, hope and meaning to many people who would have great difficulty in functioning without them. It's all very well to look upon these people as deluded but some days I really wish I could go back to believing that the universe isn't ultimately meaningless. At this time there is no easy way to give the majority of people a functioning world with no God.

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

No my rant is about why *I* bother. I'm glad you don't like it, I must be doing something right.

If nothing else you have presented me with some insight into your myopic world. It seems quite clear that your opinion is driven out of hatred towards religion and the religious. And as you are happy to abandon any form of objectivity, instead preferring gross generalisations in its stead, there is little that could be considered of value in your post.

Well, good night. Like all Christians I'm off to force my beliefs upon some heathens and then ruff up a chemist or two for supplying *gasp* prophylactics. I'm quite literally a Bible basher.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, good night. Like all Christians I'm off to force my beliefs upon some heathens and then ruff up a chemist or two for supplying *gasp* prophylactics. I'm quite literally a Bible basher.

You can get a good swing out of a bible. Hefty.

As I scientist I can also suggest trying a good undergraduate physics text. Preferably hardbound. Perfect for concussing all manner of folks.

pH

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The last three are pretty anti-christian. Particularly the protection of the pedophile priests. The others could probably be debated on grounds found within the scope of christian belief.

Yes you'd have thought that a Christian organisation would have been bending over backwards to compensate victims of these horrendous crimes, yet strangely they weren't (well nothing tangible anyway, they did manage this how very bloody big of them). I don't understand how you can argue that a decision made by the most senior members of the largest Christian church on the planet is done in the "name of various religions and yet in defiance of their core philopsophies".

Kindly don't be so entirely dismissive of my views. You are over-simplifying my point. How about Eugenics? Science has also been used to justify racism, sexism, social inequality. Perversions of science. Religion has been used in a similar fashion.

That's a different point, sure if I'm a racist idiot I could use anything I want to justify it. All your points above are just as stupid as someone saying that Boyle's law justifies putting homosexuals in a pressure vessel and heating it. They're all nonsense, they're not perversions of science they're merely perversions.

Religions give purpose, hope and meaning to many people who would have great difficulty in functioning without them. It's all very well to look upon these people as deluded but some days I really wish I could go back to believing that the universe isn't ultimately meaningless. At this time there is no easy way to give the majority of people a functioning world with no God.

No they don't, that's a simplistic and rose-tinted view of religion. Religion mainly says once you die you're most likely going to spend eternity suffering in torment, so you can spend your life worried about that too. It's this simplistic view of religion that always amazes me - "With religion death isn't the end". The implication being that 100% of people (well except for the Hitlers and Mansons) have eternal bliss to look forward to. I've got news for you, that's not what anyone is saying - getting to heaven is bloody tough, most people won't make it - death isn't a release but the start of something much worse.

How does the idea that 70 odd years as a carbon-based lifeform as some sort of test for an experimenter God give your life meaning? Life has meaning because it's a test with an exam at the end?

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If nothing else you have presented me with some insight into your myopic world. It seems quite clear that your opinion is driven out of hatred towards religion and the religious. And as you are happy to abandon any form of objectivity, instead preferring gross generalisations in its stead, there is little that could be considered of value in your post.

I don't believe in God, I think that you're wrong, but if you and your family want to attend a church and worship any number of Gods then I absolutely do not hate that, I'd fight for your right to do that. I also believe that you have every right to live your life by any additional morals that you believe your God has proscribed for you.

By all means don't engage in sex before marriage, don't enter into a homosexual relationship, don't eat pork, wear modest clothes etc. I hate none of those things, nor do I hate people trying to live their lives like that.

But what I have hatred for is any attempt by you or anyone to try and tell me your petty dogma applies to me, to try and deprive me of my freedoms and rights because you believe that God visited some desert nomads 5,000 years ago and gave them some rules.

whose-law-anywa

PH - I recon your being sensational.

How could religion have plundered and killed for centurys without science backing it. Where did the technology come from. Weapons, ships etc. Man is the problem. Power and wealth are the driving forces for the majority of humans. This is a fact and it does not make it right. Humans are hypocritical in nature. Many say/believe one thing and do another. People in power are always driven and obsessed with control and wealth. Money is a form of greed and most people are afflicted with this resulting in the contradiction in their nature as although they my believe Science/Religion is just and fair by developing thechnology for medicine/helping people out in times of need both are corrupted and give their individual power to a collective corporation/institution that is governed by a power hungry MD/demi God (sometimes actual GOD) who cause and promote war.

I've no problem with anyone or anything as long as it has no problem with me. I dont feel pressurised to practice Christianity accept for weddings and such as i only attend as to not offent the groom or bride. I recon that from my little understanding of Jesus or Ala or Buda or Darwin Einstine or Plato.... list goes on and on, they are all stand up guys. Back in the day there was no as much technology and development so the world spun differently that it does today. Powerful men got behind the Jesus/Ala or what ever idea and used it as a means to control people and domonate just like large corporations use science today to do the same thing. You cant argue with the fact that loving your neighbour is good though just like, I dont know "Boyle law is also good"

Religious outfits today are only really prominant in places where the money man has no other choice or means to control people as in under developed countries.

These old fogies going to mass and what not are just a reminder of the past and should be left alone. They cannot actually make you do anything just give out behind your back so whats the harm if it makes them fell better about themselves. In another 100 years or so it will be all over and just pages in the books of history.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

WARNING: This post is primarily aimed at atheists.

A lot of debating/arguing goes on especially between the Christian forum and here. Sometimes I get confused as to which one I am in, as there seems to be equal numbers of christians and atheists in both. :rolleyes:

I guess I am just interested in accumulating peoples various opinions on this question. Why do you debate with Christians?

It seems to me unlikely that any logical arguments will make even the slightest dent in the Christian's "bible defence". Even the most foolproof logic can be easily ignored by any manner of means, by the most faithful.

For example:

Word redefinition - "Yes, your argument is sound, I just have a different definition of that word!"
Biblical inerrancy - "You're an atheist, your interpretation of the bible is obviously just wrong."
We all know the bible is entirely free from any of these:
# errors of any kind
# contradictions
# absurdities
And if in doubt, just lie for Jesus!!

If you have examples of people lying in posts then why not report them to the relevant moderator?

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

Yes you'd have thought that a Christian organisation would have been bending over backwards to compensate victims of these horrendous crimes, yet strangely they weren't (well nothing tangible anyway, they did manage this how very bloody big of them). I don't understand how you can argue that a decision made by the most senior members of the largest Christian church on the planet is done in the "name of various religions and yet in defiance of their core philopsophies".

Why don't you understand that? The core philosophies of Christianity are:

Love your fellow humans unconditionally.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Turn the other cheek even when it puts your life at risk.

That the leaders of the Catholic church are shamefully defying these ideals does not mean that those ideals are no longer at the core of Christianity. It means that as an organised religion, Catholicism has strayed from its original intentions.

pH wrote: »

That's a different point, sure if I'm a racist idiot I could use anything I want to justify it.

And my point is that, in a similar manner the power-hungry, the violent and the prejudiced have also used various religions to validate their actions despite the clear conflict present with the core beliefs of those religions.

pH wrote: »

All your points above are just as stupid as someone saying that Boyle's law justifies putting homosexuals in a pressure vessel and heating it. They're all nonsense, they're not perversions of science they're merely perversions.

My points are not rubbish, stupid or nonsense. We're having a debate here, don't turn this into something else.

pH wrote: »

No they don't, that's a simplistic and rose-tinted view of religion. Religion mainly says once you die you're most likely going to spend eternity suffering in torment, so you can spend your life worried about that too. It's this simplistic view of religion that always amazes me - "With religion death isn't the end". The implication being that 100% of people (well except for the Hitlers and Mansons) have eternal bliss to look forward to. I've got news for you, that's not what anyone is saying - getting to heaven is bloody tough, most people won't make it - death isn't a release but the start of something much worse.

What you state religion is saying regarding death seems to be at odds with what many followers of these religions believe. I was at a funeral just a couple of weeks ago. I didn't hear any talk of hell nor of purgatory. It was all about hope. Don't believe a word of it myself, but it certainly helped a lot of people there to deal with their loss.

pH wrote: »

How does the idea that 70 odd years as a carbon-based lifeform as some sort of test for an experimenter God give your life meaning? Life has meaning because it's a test with an exam at the end?

The idea doesn't give my life any meaning at all. I derive that from elsewhere entirely. However, for many I'm sure your statement sums it up in a nutshell. The meaning of life simplified into an easily-understood analogy with something commonplace. Most people would rather not spend excessive amounts of time wrestling with the really big questions.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

If you have examples of people lying in posts then why not report them to the relevant moderator?

It's less what you'd call lies and more what you'd call unfounded claims. Reporting your board members for claiming God exists is unlikely to produce any sort of disciplinary action Nor would we expect it to.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's less what you'd call lies and more what you'd call unfounded claims. Reporting your board members for claiming God exists is unlikely to produce any sort of disciplinary action Nor would we expect it to.

I would view the claim that God does not exist as an unfounded (and indeed unproveable) claim. However, I am far too tolerant and open-minded to call people liars for making such a claim.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I would view the claim that God does not exist as an unfounded (and indeed unproveable) claim. However, I am far too tolerant and open-minded to call people liars for making such a claim.

By "proof" do you mean deductive logic? Remember you can't have proofs in inductive logic only deductive logic.

There is a deductive logical argument that God (the all caring, all knowing, all powerful one) does not exist.
Premise: Kids get Cancer
Conclusion: There is no all caring, all knowing, all powerful God.

Christians usually get out of this one by misunderstanding it or the "free-will" argument. "free-will" is a very silly rebuttal and can be easily torn apart.

The only way out of that argument, from a logical perspective is that God knows better in the long run (note this is different to free - will). Or that God does not have the three properties:
1. All caring
2. All knowing
3. All powerful

He may have 2 of them, but not 3. But then he is not God by our original definition.

So yes there is a simple deductive logic argument for no God.

pH

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why don't you understand that? The core philosophies of Christianity are:

Love your fellow humans unconditionally.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Turn the other cheek even when it puts your life at risk.

This could easily get surreal - 2 atheists arguing about the true meaning of Christianity and which sect has interpreted the bible and Christ's teachings correctly! This is normally the domain of devout Christians.

Needless to say I disagree with your list, the basic beliefs/philosophies of Christianity are pretty much the things mentioned in the Nicene Creed. You as a right thinking atheist have focussed on some small peripheral aspects of Christianity which resonate with you, but they're certainly not core beliefs.

That the leaders of the Catholic church are shamefully defying these ideals does not mean that those ideals are no longer at the core of Christianity. It means that as an organised religion, Catholicism has strayed from its original intentions.

See above, this could get quite comical if we as atheists start an argument about which Christian sect is a true representation of Jesus' teachings.

And my point is that, in a similar manner the power-hungry, the violent and the prejudiced have also used various religions to validate their actions despite the clear conflict present with the core beliefs of those religions.

I believe this is a rose-tinted view of religion, held mainly by those not cynical enough to see its true purpose.

For example if I try to use Natural Selection as an excuse for slavery (that somehow white people are more advanced than black) then I'm just being a stupid and ignorant. I'm not sure that the same applies with religion, if I have a book that God gave us that says keeping slaves is acceptable (and even goes into detail on their treatment) this to me is totally different.

My points are not rubbish, stupid or nonsense. We're having a debate here, don't turn this into something else.

I think that your point equating what some ignorant people have tried to justify using 'science' with the ignorance and bigotry plainly contained in main religious texts like the Bible and Koran is silly.

What you state religion is saying regarding death seems to be at odds with what many followers of these religions believe. I was at a funeral just a couple of weeks ago. I didn't hear any talk of hell nor of purgatory. It was all about hope. Don't believe a word of it myself, but it certainly helped a lot of people there to deal with their loss.

I'm presuming that it was a Christian service, it says a lot about the intelligence and honesty of Christians and their pastors that they're not prepared to say what they really believe at a funeral which should go something like this : "Aunt Mary is dead now and is either with God in heaven or burning in the depth of hades - and it's not our job to guess which one"

The idea doesn't give my life any meaning at all. I derive that from elsewhere entirely. However, for many I'm sure your statement sums it up in a nutshell. The meaning of life simplified into an easily-understood analogy with something commonplace. Most people would rather not spend excessive amounts of time wrestling with the really big questions.

Another one of my pet hates, the superior atheist who can deal with the truth while there are so many little people out their who couldn't possibly handle it and can only get through the day by believing in fairy tales. It's condescending superior nonsense.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's less what you'd call lies and more what you'd call unfounded claims.

There have been plenty of times that people on the Christainity forum have complained about people lying (mostly on the Creationist thread), complaints that were ignored by the last moderator, who instead told people to stop calling others liars.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why don't you understand that? The core philosophies of Christianity are:

Love your fellow humans unconditionally.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Turn the other cheek even when it puts your life at risk.

The problem is that these are just sound bites. Christians (proper ones) don't actually believe in these as principles.

The core principle of Christianity is DO WHAT "GOD" TELLS YOU

Christians will argue that God is currently telling them to love their fellow humans, turn the other cheek etc, (which I suppose is something), so they do that (not out of any strong agreement on their own, but because they wish to please God) but you then get bizarre conversations like the one on the Christianity forum at the moment, where the same Christians are trying to justify the total genocide of "wicked" people. The "love" is surprisingly absence from these conversations, because the love isn't actually their principle, their principle is God is always right.

So these are not core principles. They are merely the current instructions. The core principle is to do what you are told. When you understand that a lot of Christian history becomes clearer.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

You as a right thinking atheist have focussed on some small peripheral aspects of Christianity which resonate with you, but they're certainly not core beliefs.

On The Contrary. I think AtomicHorror has a greater grasp on the core of Christianity than most Christians do. But if your looking to make a stick to bash Christianity, there is plenty of materials throughout the history of its claiments unfortunately.

I think AtomicHorror that you deserve the utmost respect from my perspective. So many wish to use the acts of professing Christians to whip them with. However, although you reject christianity, your brief insight and simplistic explaination as to the core of Christianity is truly enlightened. Your honesty I commend.