Why do you bother?

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

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

When early Christians got together to see what they all could agree on here's what they came up with:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father,
By whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man,
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost,
The Lord and giver of life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the world to come.
Amen.

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

Maybe you've invented a new kinder gentler religion in your head, but it certainly doesn't sound like Christianity. Would have been nice if they included all of Atomic's nice modern fluffy values but they didn't, because they're not core beliefs they're a modern sideshow that the churches have to use now they can no longer rely on force, torture and law to keep the faithful in line.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

If I see evidence of lying then I will act upon it.

However, sometimes you may suspect something is untrue but lack the evidence to nail it down as such.

For example, JC may claim to be a scientist, but a lot of posters may suspect that is untrue. Wicknight may claim to have be open-minded, but a lot of posters may suspect that to be untrue. Nevertheless, I don't think either case warrants calling either of them a liar.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If I see evidence of lying then I will act upon it.

However, sometimes you may suspect something is untrue but lack the evidence to nail it down as such.

For example, JC may claim to be a scientist, but a lot of posters may suspect that is untrue. Wicknight may claim to have be open-minded, but a lot of posters may suspect that to be untrue. Nevertheless, I don't think either case warrants calling either of them a liar.

And what do we do if JC claims that Darwinian evolution says that life developed in a random manner that is so improbable that it can be ruled out as happening? Or that no transitional fossils have ever been found?

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

When early Christians got together to see what they all could agree on here's what they came up with:


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

Maybe you've invented a new kinder gentler religion in your head, but it certainly doesn't sound like Christianity. Would have been nice if they included all of Atomic's nice modern fluffy values but they didn't, because they're not core beliefs they're a modern sideshow that the churches have to use now they can no longer rely on force, torture and law to keep the faithful in line.

PH, I'm not arguing. You have your agenda. You've made up your mind. It was very nice to see though, that a fellow atheist of yours, at least has a grasp on the core of Christianity. Nicene creed means little to me. Just because men in silly hats get together, it doesn't mean it represents Christ. Although, apart from the declaration about the RC Church being apostolic etc, I don't see much wrong with the Nicene creed. Its a waste of ink, but it doesn't really say anything that the scriptures didn't. As i said though, it was good to see that AtomicHorror see's that Jesus' commands and examples was about Love. You obviously hold organised religion up as an authority on things Christian though, and on that grounds you'd be right. The Christianity that much of Christendom has pushed, falls far from the tree of Christ. Its much easier to pick on and jeer though. The scriptures atre always there though for one to decipher themselves.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Nicene creed means little to me. Just because men in silly hats get together, it doesn't mean it represents Christ.

Well I think that is Ph's point, a lot of modern Christians have made up their own version of the religion based on things that they feel are important to them, but that holds little in common with traditional Christianity.

You all of course claim that you know what Christ actually wanted, so you all take a sense of authenticity into your religion.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

And what do we do if JC claims that Darwinian evolution says that life developed in a random manner that is so improbable that it can be ruled out as happening? Or that no transitional fossils have ever been found?

The same way that I deal with those who make untrue claims on the Christianity forum. For example, one poster repeatedly makes untrue claims concerning Christian History. I simply tell him he is wrong, insert the occasional :rolleyes: emoticon, and post the relevant links and quotes to demonstrate that he is wrong. I don't call him a liar - I just try to be charitable and assume that he thought he was right but had not sufficiently checked his facts before posting.

On a personal note, if someone posts convincing evidence that demonstrates that I have made an untrue statement I will immediately acknowledge that and post something like "I stand corrected". Unfortunately I find that few other posters, either Christian or atheist, are prepared to do likewise.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

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

I think it's more subtle than that, though this is what it boils down to, externally anyhow.

It seems to me that christianity's principal rule "Do what you believe your interpretation of christianity instructs you to do" (and many interpretations include the instruction to spread the same rule, hence it propagates).

Since many churches assert the primacy of conscience, what's actually happening at some distance from the surface, is that christianity is providing a mechanism for people, self-credibly, to believe whatever they want to believe. And since it clear from the religious forums that many people believe entirely contradictory things while simultaneously believing that they're supported by the religion (or interpreting in the most accurate way possible) it seems that biblical contradictions, far from being a "problem" within religion, are actually crucial to religion's success by maximizing its appeal.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

one poster repeatedly makes untrue claims concerning Christian History.

It's probably more than one in fairness :-)

History isn't really a very valid comparison.
Science is supposed to be an objective paradigm. History, can be very subjective.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

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.

I draw a distinction between the practical core beliefs of a religion and the moral philosophy that is derived from it. The points I stated are the key elements of the moral philosophy of Jesus. The world view of Jesus Christ could hardly be said to be "peripheral" to Christianity.

pH wrote: »

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.

The differences between the sects tend to be based on the implementation of the core beliefs rather than differences in moral philosophy. Except maybe the Jehova's Witnesses- I don't know what those guys are on.

pH wrote: »

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

Your cynicism ignores the fact that many religions arise organically out of various human needs. The mass manipulation of followers comes later. I'm not blind to the abuse of power that is evident throughout the history of Christianity but there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Christianity was intended from the get-go as a control mechanism. That said- it seems likely that Peter and his friends were aware that their faith, if it existed, was on shaky ground.

pH wrote: »

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.

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.

Taken as dogma, science and religious texts are equally dangerous. Much of the old testament is ignored by modern Christians. At least until such time as the darker passages are required to justify dark deeds. The desire comes first, the justification comes later (via whatever authoritative source one needs to wield to control a target audience).

pH wrote: »

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"

Modern concepts of hell developed much more recent than the writings in the bible. References to hades and the lake of fire in the new testament are sporadic and vague. In the old testament, sheol is not a place of punishment or suffering but merely a holding place for the soul until such time as Judgment comes. Fire and brimstone is a product of more authoritarian times and more a reflection on the interpretations and focus of religious thinkers over the last few centuries than anything central to the teachings of Jesus. Essentially a means of controlling through fear. While damnation is a threat still held over the heads of many Christians, it is equally absent entirely from the beliefs of many others.

pH wrote: »

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.

I find it very insulting that you would so quickly judge me condescending and superior. It's also a little rich that you'd accuse me of being superior when you advocate such vitriolic and open rejection of other people's faiths. I can no more be said to be so than any other Agnostic or Atheist. I do not look down upon my parents or my partner because of their faiths. These are people that I admire greatly but simply disagree with. I do not equate "need" with "weakness".

I'll ask you once more to stop trying to make this into something personal, after that I'm done with this discussion.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I think that is Ph's point, a lot of modern Christians have made up their own version of the religion based on things that they feel are important to them, but that holds little in common with traditional Christianity.

You all of course claim that you know what Christ actually wanted, so you all take a sense of authenticity into your religion.

His main point really appears to be that religions, including Christianity, are constructions specifically designed from the outset to control the masses through fear of damnation. They are therefore inherently bad.

It seems much more likely that religions arose initially to explain a complex universe in the absence of science, to provide a framework for philosophies regarding unanswerable questions and to provide a justification (where less concrete justification was needed) for moral philosophies. The resulting social structures were vulnerable the usual human failings.

FruitLover

iUseVi wrote: »

Why do you debate with Christians?

I don't. Arguing with idiots is a waste of time.

AtomicHorror

FruitLover wrote: »

I don't. Arguing with idiots is a waste of time.

There's a whole lot of them- so that's a pretty massively sweeping generalization. There's plenty of idiots in there for sure, but there's some pretty dopey Atheists around too. And as has already been stated, the debate's not so much about convincing the likes of J_C than it is about informing the audience who might have uncertain views.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

His main point really appears to be that religions, including Christianity, are constructions specifically designed from the outset to control the masses through fear of damnation. They are therefore inherently bad.

It seems much more likely that religions arose initially to explain a complex universe in the absence of science, to provide a framework for philosophies regarding unanswerable questions and to provide a justification (where less concrete justification was needed) for moral philosophies. The resulting social structures were vulnerable the usual human failings.

I would disagree. The central construct of religions seems to be the concept of a higher authority (a God). Yes this God is used to explain scientific questions, but his main purpose seems to be to give the religion itself an authority to tell people want to do and how to behave.

As I said earlier, the central premiss of Christianity is to do as you are told by God.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes this God is used to explain scientific questions, but his main purpose seems to be to give the religion itself an authority to tell people want to do and how to behave.

That'd be the moral philosophy I mentioned. What we'd consider the "main purpose" of a religion is very much open to subjectivity. Further, there a number of religions which do no have "higher authority" beings. Early polytheistic religions didn't really view the Sun and his mates as authorities but rather as detached intelligences going about their business with little interest in humans. Greek and Roman polytheism saw the pantheon more as players of some grand game (viewing humans as little more than playthings) than moral authorities over humanity. Buddhism would be a modern example of a religion lacking distinct supernatural authorities. In Christianity, the authority figure certainly serves to enforce moral codes in the absence of concrete rewards or punishments (or the inadequacy of these) and would have been especially useful in shaping the moral behavior of those less empathic or in positions of greater material wealth. That said, in the early days of the Christian church at least, the incentive was less punishment than it was divine reward, as evidenced by a severe lack of fire-and-brimstone rhetoric from Jesus (I think he hints at some form of hell exactly once in the gospels whilst talking about love and forgiveness almost constantly). At that stage, I don't think there's any real evidence for the sort of contrived control system that PH suggests. Clearly though, the church quite quickly became a political force with all of the associated unpleasantness.

Dades

FruitLover - your post is an obvious charter violation.
Consider yourself warned.

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Taken as dogma, science and religious texts are equally dangerous. Much of the old testament is ignored by modern Christians. At least until such time as the darker passages are required to justify dark deeds. The desire comes first, the justification comes later (via whatever authoritative source one needs to wield to control a target audience).

To expand on this somewhat, all manner of philosophies can be cynically used in this manner, despite their noble intentions. The wars in the middle east have variously been justified in the names of Jesus, Allah, Economics and Democracy. Of these, only Economics does not flatly reject violence- so perhaps its claim is more valid on that one point.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

Excellent suggestion. I have such a tome from my college days!

'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' *Bash* Now tell me you love Jesus!

stereoroid

I've pretty much given up on debating theists, not that I ever did much of that.

I'm bored at the appeals to details of Theology, and the implication that I'm not qualified to debate a theist just because I can't quote at random from the Bible, Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus. That's like saying I need to be an expert on cars to have an aversion to being hit by one.

I'm confused at the way people accept the words of other people as "evidence" of the supernaturalism they want to believe in, and then bend their lives out of shape on the basis of nothing at all... then warp the tiny little minds of their children, ensuring that the delusion is perpetuated.

Most of all, I'm tired of the notion that it's somehow my job to actively disprove someone's beliefs. The Emperor has no Clothes; in the fairy tale, the little boy only had to point that out once, for the whole kingdom to see it. :rolleyes:

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

I was thinking of particularly of the creationist thread when I mentioned lying. Honestly, whats the point in complaining? The things I see as lies, others would not see in the same way. I expect for the most part people are sincere in their claims, even if they happen to be wrong. So technically I suppose its not lying if they think they are speaking the truth.
But if people are coming out with stuff that I and others see as rubbish, we are gonna call it such.

Thats half the fun of debating!:)

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That said, in the early days of the Christian church at least, the incentive was less punishment than it was divine reward, as evidenced by a severe lack of fire-and-brimstone rhetoric from Jesus (I think he hints at some form of hell exactly once in the gospels whilst talking about love and forgiveness almost constantly).

Well we are getting a bit side tracked, and you have valid points about the gods in the sun style of religion, but if you look at Jesus' speeches nearly everything is connected to a "If you don't do this you will not be saved" attitude, which goes some way to supporting ph. Jesus isn't treating punishment, but he is threatening the removal of salvation.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

I was thinking of particularly of the creationist thread when I mentioned lying. Honestly, whats the point in complaining?

I've given up complaining, I just rest safe in the knowledge that no one except the mentally ill (which I include myself) still read that thread from Hell.

Popinjay

Wicknight wrote: »

I've given up complaining, I just rest safe in the knowledge that no one except the mentally ill (which I include myself) still read that thread from Hell.

I read it pretty regularly but I'm sane enough to realise that actually getting involved would only make my brain dribble out of my ears. I, for some unknown reason, actually went back and read it all the way from the start before I even joined Boards. Even that almost killed me. After about forty or fifty pages you find yourself dribbling a lot and singing the Marseillaise (sp?) backwards.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

I've given up complaining, I just rest safe in the knowledge that no one except the mentally ill (which I include myself) still read that thread from Hell.

I thought you were going to say that no one, except the mentally ill, would believe the sh1te that JC and co were posting.

MrP

CerebralCortex

MrPudding wrote: »

I thought you were going to say that no one, except the mentally ill, would believe the sh1te that JC and co were posting.

MrP

Does anybody know why JC ......posts....like....this...? ....It's....really....annoying....on....both....the.....eye....and difficult to type.

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Does anybody know why JC ......posts....like....this...? ....It's....really....annoying....on....both....the.....eye....and difficult to type.

I imagine it is a reflection on the stream of consciousness his posts seem to involve.

Popinjay

His style certainly does seem to indicate shall we say a fractured thought process.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine it is a reflection on the stream of consciousness his posts seem to involve.

Yes, I don't think there's much forethought or planning in there. He shoots from the hip. I haven't yet determined if he has a pre-conceived position on Evolution. His position seems to shift to new ground regularly. He's slippery, and much like God, he depends on the little grey gaps of uncertainty in our knowledge. Or perhaps his own knowledge?

Popinjay wrote: »

I read it pretty regularly but I'm sane enough to realise that actually getting involved would only make my brain dribble out of my ears. I, for some unknown reason, actually went back and read it all the way from the start before I even joined Boards. Even that almost killed me. After about forty or fifty pages you find yourself dribbling a lot and singing the Marseillaise (sp?) backwards.

I glanced through but ultimately I just crossed my fingers and jumped in at the end. Hopefully I'm not repeating anyone verbatim but after hundreds of pages the odds are against me.

Popinjay

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I glanced through but ultimately I just crossed my fingers and jumped in at the end. Hopefully I'm not repeating anyone verbatim but after hundreds of pages the odds are against me.

I wouldn't worry about that. JC and Wolfy tend to do a lot of repeating there anyway so there's no harm if you say something that's already been said. I must admit, I admire you're bravery in getting invovled at all. Scofflaw and Wicky and Robin must be knackered by now so they could probably do with a break. I'd get involved myself but 1) I'm frightened and 2) Everything I could say has already been said better than I could put it.

Kudos for fighting the good fight gentlemen. Everyone at home appreciates the sterling work our soldiers are doing.

EDIT: Although I wonder what happened JC to make him post like a nutter. Look at this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3527599&postcount=5

robindch

Popinjay wrote: »

Robin must be knackered

hmm... I threw in the 'serious' towel in that thread after firing off the last two paras of this post, almost three years ago -- hey, it's fun, of a voyeuristic kind

Dades

Haha, I enjoyed that post Robin.

I also bowed out of the Creationist thread in 2005, with this post.

Occasionally I lurk in there to learn, but I know I'd be wasting my one-and-only life posting to debate with the resident ID stalwarts!