The Christian Thread!

[SkinWalker]

I don't think I'm claiming that a god exists. I'm advocating that it's feasible, because we couldn’t know either way. Just like your toaster, or marshmallow man, or whatever.

 

Feasible implies that something can occur with current means or known facts. This simply isn't the case with either gods, flying toasters, or the Marshmallow Man.

 

considering it is theory based on theory. So, no arguments here.

 

Correction: speculation based on speculation. "Theories" incorporate facts and tested hypotheses and even laws. When discussing concepts that involve science, it's important to make that distinction.

[90SK]

Duly noted. Let me correct myself:

 

I'm advocating that it's possible, because we couldn’t know either way.

 

 

I could use a rebuttal like "If a god or gods do exist, I'm pretty sure they'd be beyond our comprehension”, but that’s hardly a decent focal point for an argument, considering it is speculation based on speculation.

[Jae Onasi]

My philosophy in life is that religion shouldn't be shielded from the same tools of criticism, inquiry, and skepticism that other human endeavors seem to find with little or no quarrel.

 

I've no issues with that. I never said 'don't debate this.' I think it's very important for Christians to have an intellectual understanding of their faith, and to think about why they believe instead of taking it just at face value.

 

My criticism of religion as "magic" is a fair one and my analogy of the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man is likewise a fair one. I'm afraid I cannot offer my apology if you are offended, for this is my position; my argument; and my story. I'm sticking to it.

 

Horse hockey. Mockery has no place in an intellectual discussion, especially one this emotionally charged already. There are plenty of analogies you could use that are just as effective without the disparaging undertones. I'm not offended in the least if you dislike religion or the fact that I'm Christian. I'm interested in exploring apologetics more, and I'm sincerely interested in seeing how you arrived at your beliefs, too, because atheism isn't a topic I've explored in any great depth. I'm not here to convert the areligious to a religion, I just want to enjoy a spirited discussion. I intend to show you and your opinions (and anyone else) respect--I'm merely asking for the same in return, and I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

 

As a professional woman with a family, my time is at a premium, and I'm assuming if you're a family man who's going to college and likely also working, that your time is just as precious. I will have to make time to do the appropriate research to discuss the undoubtedly interesting points that will get raised here, and with any luck I might be able to pose something interesting for you to investigate as well in the defense of your views. If the argument's going to be met with respectful disagreement, I'm fine with that. If it's going to be met with scorn, neither of us should waste each other's time. Don't know about you, but after working in/out of the home and chasing after a couple of young kids, I don't have the energy for dealing with scorn (either dishing it out or taking it), either.

 

As Lord Reith once remarked, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Religion is one of the most pervasive human endeavors and it permeates every culture in some form or another.

 

I think there's more effective methods at getting a point across than offending. It's hard to engage someone in an open discussion if you've put them on the defensive.

 

So, why does religion permeate all cultures? What is it that humankind needs that religion seems to fill?

 

Most importantly, religion has the potential, as history has demonstrated so painfully, to influence large numbers of people, including entire populations, for good or for bad. Any human institution or endeavor with this much power and potential should be carefully scrutinized and the tough questions asked of it always.

 

I agree with you completely on these points. Religion, or its abuse, has been a boon and a bane for millenia. In the 20th century alone, I'm amazed at the work of Dr. King, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. I'm appalled at a level of anti-Semitism that could lead to the Holocaust, bombing of abortion clinics, and the unending wars using religion as an excuse. I don't know that I have a brilliant answer for keeping the very best religion has to offer while getting rid of the stupid crap.

 

Ironically, the most significant and pervasive human endeavor is the one that is most likely to be tolerated without inquiry or dissent: a human failing that has resulted in much pain and suffering in history.

 

Humans, religious or not, do bad things. Transparency in any organization to prevent abuse is a good thing. If we'd had that all along, we'd never have cases of child sexual abuse in the church (and sadly, it's not confined to the Catholic church, they just happen to have the deepest pockets) or catastrophic Enron failures. I think inquiry encourages growth, but some people are scared of that.

 

I'll have to go check out the 'infinitely old universe' assertion and the 'a creator must have a creator' assertion and get back to you.

[Nedak]

It doesn't. It really doesn't. I'm just curious as to how someone - and the vast majority of the world's population for that matter - could possibly believe such a thing.

 

All the Christians I know are either "brainwashed", ignorant, or just can't comprehend, or can't accept the possibly of there not being a god. Most Christians I know don't even know what Evolution is, and are just Christians because it is the most popular religion in their community.

 

P.S I'm not saying Christians in general are ignorant, I'm just giving my view of what I see my the area where I live.

[Joetheeskimo]

P.S I'm not saying Christians in general are ignorant, I'm just giving my view of what I see my the area where I live.

 

Where do you live? (That is, which state?)

[Jeff]

All the Christians I know are either "brainwashed", ignorant, or just can't comprehend, or can't accept the possibly of there not being a god. Most Christians I know don't even know what Evolution is, and are just Christians because it is the most popular religion in their community.

Isn't that the same as saying Atheists can't comprehend the possibility of there being a god? I know what you're saying, but you have to look at the other side of the coin. I don't think I could ever be convinced there wasn't a God. There's probably more to it than it's the most popular religion in the community.

[TK-8252]

Isn't that the same as saying Atheists can't comprehend the possibility of there being a god? I know what you're saying, but you have to look at the other side of the coin. I don't think I could ever be convinced there wasn't a God.

 

Atheists don't believe in god/gods simply because there is no evidence.

 

Show me evidence that your bearded guy in the sky is real and I'll gladly believe in him.

 

It's not about being convinced that there isn't a god. It's about not being convinced that there is a god. The burden of proof is on the person with the belief.

 

Consider this: when you were born, you had no knowledge of god. You as a baby were essentially an atheist. You have no believe in god because you aren't aware of the concept of god. Only when - since childhood - you are made to believe that there is a god do you believe in it.

 

There's probably more to it than it's the most popular religion in the community.

 

Then why is it that nearly every single child born to Christian parents ends up a Christian? Why is nearly every single child born to Muslim parents ending up a Muslim?

[Jae Onasi]

Then why is it that nearly every single child born to Christian parents ends up a Christian? Why is nearly every single child born to Muslim parents ending up a Muslim?

 

Because we feel that belief brings meaning and comfort to our lives, and we want our children to experience the benefits of that.

Of course, I try to make sure my kids also learn to avoid the ways religion has been abused, too, so they don't make the mistake of using religion as an excuse to commit bad behavior.

[milo]

Consider this: when you were born, you had no knowledge of god. You as a baby were essentially an atheist.

Do you remember when you were born? Could you ask a baby, "hey, do you believe in God?" From a christian standpoint, you could say that babies know the most about God. Their little spirits have just come down from heaven, and they can clearly remember God.

You have no believe in god because you aren't aware of the concept of god. Only when - since childhood - you are made to believe that there is a god do you believe in it.

Again--maybe babies already know of God, and depending on wether their parents are atheists or christians, that knowledge will either be affirmed or destroyed as they grow older.

 

I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, just saying that you can't really prove that babies are born as atheists.

 

Okay, back to lurker mode.

[TK-8252]

Because we feel that belief brings meaning and comfort to our lives, and we want our children to experience the benefits of that.

Of course, I try to make sure my kids also learn to avoid the ways religion has been abused, too, so they don't make the mistake of using religion as an excuse to commit bad behavior.

 

What benefits come from believing in a bearded guy in the sky as opposed to just believing in being a good person, give to charity now and then, go to work and make money, and other good stuff like that?

 

Why is it that for some reason, religious indoctrination is assumed to be a requirement in order for someone to have meaning or comfort in their lives?

 

Or is it just a crutch? As in, "oh not to worry, we have life after death, and we can see our relatives in heaven if we're good!" etc.

 

That's good and well and all, but that Muslim guy who just got his throat sliced today in Iraq - according to Christianity - would certainly NOT be going to heaven... even though he was just trying to live his life in peace. Just because he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ he spends an eternity burning in hell?? How does that make sense? Or Gandi? He's probably getting boned by the devil right now for not accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.

 

If I were a Christian I'd certainly be ashamed of my god... sending people to hell just because they didn't believe the "right" religion and yet lived perfectly peaceful and productive lives...

 

I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, just saying that you can't really prove that babies are born as atheists.

 

Do babies have a belief in god?

 

No. They really don't have any beliefs in anything at all until they have language. Therefore that makes them by definition, atheists. Yes it sounds silly but... how can you possibly know who Jesus is or who Muhammed is until you're taught about them? You don't.

[Emperor Devon]

What benefits come from believing in a bearded guy in the sky as opposed to just believing in being a good person, give to charity now and then, go to work and make money, and other good stuff like that?

 

Beliefs have no visible benefits. I reap no more benefit from being an atheist than I would from being a Christian.

 

For the second thing, religions and (good) parents teach that.

 

Or is it just a crutch? As in, "oh not to worry, we have life after death, and we can see our relatives in heaven if we're good!" etc.

 

It's just as much a crutch as being an atheist, agnostic, theist, you name it.

 

How does that make sense? Or Gandi? He's probably getting boned by the devil right now for not accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.

 

Some good people I've met who are Christians think you'll go to Heaven if you're virtuous, regardless of your belief.

 

how can you possibly know who Jesus is or who Muhammed is until you're taught about them? You don't.

 

They don't know about atheism either, and cannot reject any ideas of God. I've always thought babies aren't anything in terms of religion.

 

By no means am I implying in my posts that I support Christianity, though. I think it's just another equal form of faith that I have seen less reason to believe in.

[Kurgan]

Do babies have a belief in god?

 

No. They really don't have any beliefs in anything at all until they have language. Therefore that makes them by definition, atheists. Yes it sounds silly but... how can you possibly know who Jesus is or who Muhammed is until you're taught about them? You don't.

 

True, but to have any belief about God would require some knowledge of culture, etc. Unless you believe babies have a built in belief that they are "taught out of" by parents.

 

If anything, they are agnostics or weak atheists (since that would be defined as lacking a belief in God, as opposed to rejecting the idea of God or disbelieving in the notion of deities, period), if you really wanted to push the point. I think I went through another thread about the "naturalness of atheism" or something. But of course it proved nothing about the validity of atheism, since we also have to learn a lot of things, since we're born helpless.

[SkinWalker]

They don't know about atheism either, and cannot reject any ideas of God. I've always thought babies aren't anything in terms of religion.

 

Atheism isn't a premise. It's a lack of one. The etymology of the word implies without god(s). Until one is indoctrinated in the belief or come to the belief of their own accord, they are atheist. My daughter is nearly five and is a perfect atheist. She has no knowledge of god(s) nor does she care about one.

 

I would hazard to say that probably every poster in this thread, particularly the christians and muslims, are all atheists. There are many gods for whom they do not believe. The difference between them and I is that I believe in one less than they.

 

The "weak"/"strong" descriptors for atheism are cop-out words. Either you believe in god(s) or you don't. You're either an atheist or a theist. Agnostic is merely an adjective to describe one of these, since agnostic means the theist or atheist accepts the premise that actually empirically knowing whether or not god(s) exist(s) is an unattainable observation. I consider myself an agnostic-atheist. I've conversed with many who are agnostic-theists.

 

Either you believe in the supernatural (magic) or you don't. I see no evidence to support that the supernatural is real (gods, fairies, unicorns, witches, centaurs, Keebler elves, etc.), but I accept the premise that to know for sure is an unattainable position since one cannot empirically observe the entire universe.

[Jae Onasi]

What benefits come from believing in a bearded guy in the sky as opposed to just believing in being a good person, give to charity now and then, go to work and make money, and other good stuff like that?

 

I am not saying that others don't get comfort/meaning from whatever religion/belief system they happen to be a part of, because obviously they do get something out of it, or those beliefs wouldn't continue to exist and flourish.

 

Why is it that for some reason, religious indoctrination is assumed to be a requirement in order for someone to have meaning or comfort in their lives?

 

I don't assume that. Christians choose to share faith with our children because of the benefits we feel it brings to our lives. That does not preclude people from other religions or the areligious from having and sharing the benefits of their particular belief systems with their children.

 

Or is it just a crutch? As in, "oh not to worry, we have life after death, and we can see our relatives in heaven if we're good!" etc.

 

Christianity isn't for the dead. It's for the living. I imagine most other religions are similar. I'm assuming atheism has no concept of afterlife so by definition one would be confined to making appropriate choices while living.

 

My relationship with God is in the here and now, not the future. I don't use belief in God as a form of 'fire insurance'. I also don't ascribe to the philosophy of 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die', either. God wants a relationship with me, I've chosen to accept that relationship, but that choice also comes with some specific responsibilities. If it were 'just a crutch', I'd merely be reaping benefits without having to do any of the work involved.

 

It provides me with a moral framework and a guide on what's good and bad (In an incredibly simplisitic vein: killing, stealing, hurting someone--bad. Helping people in a tangible way--good). I don't have to 'guess' on what's right and wrong. I have an inspiration (Christ) who showed what it was like to live in a loving way. It gives me some practical tips on marriage, family, life in general (Proverbs is pretty concrete). There is a lot of discussion currently about the health benefits of religion, and in my very brief Medline search, I've noticed a number of articles that say there's a small benefit on health and life expectancy for those who are religious e.g. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524578_4 , and while there are other articles that show little or no benefit, everyone seems to agree that more studies with good designs are needed.

 

When I pray/take time to read the Bible/get together to worship with others, I know my particular blood pressure is lowered (and I'm reaching the age where I actually have to start caring about things like that). I feel less stressed and more calm--particularly important to strive for with my Type-A personality, and I'm better able to deal with life. To some degree, I get similar benefits from doing forms/kata in taekwondo (both because of the exercise and because you concentrate on the form so much you don't have the opportunity to worry about life demands right then) and taking my prescription medications. However, in the church I'm also contributing to the well-being of others, sometimes in a tangible way, sometimes intangible, and that makes me feel better, too. I'm able to take a lower strength medication because of what faith does for my particular health. When my dad was critically ill and we weren't sure he was going to live, it was comforting to me emotionally that there were dozens, if not more, people praying not only for him but for our entire family. That community support meant a lot to me. Also, while I did not want him to die, I knew that he'd likely be in a better place if he did die. I didn't feel fear over the possibility of his death, though I would have missed him terribly and would have mourned whether he and I were religious or not.

 

 

Just because he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ he spends an eternity burning in hell?? How does that make sense? Or Gandi? He's probably getting boned by the devil right now for not accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.

 

Now _there's_ an image worthy of my RN grandmother who loved it when I laughed at her dirty jokes....

 

I never presume to know what's truly in the hearts of men and women. It drives me absolutely crazy when a few of my evangelical brothers and sisters say 'oh, so-and-so is going to hell'. I would have to know every single thought of every single moment of their lives to determine that, and since I can't, it's impossible for me to know what is in their thoughts and souls. Judgment is God's purvue, not mine. I think we're all going to be very surprised one day to see who's in heaven and who's not.

If God wanted to make us all Christians, He could have done it a long time ago. If He could create an entire universe, He could also wire our piddly little brains such that we all believed one way. Since He hasn't, I assume there's likely a good reason (and don't say, yeah, cause He's not out there--I'm working from a faith base, remember), freedom of choice/will being one of the prime reasons, but there may be other reasons I don't know about.

 

 

 

Do babies have a belief in god?

No.

They really don't have any beliefs in anything at all until they have language. Therefore that makes them by definition, atheists.

 

It does not by definition make them atheists. There is no way to prove that babies have rejected the existence of a deity. Their neurological systems have not developed enough to process such abstract thoughts at that age. If the visual system alone takes an entire year to develop enough where a baby can see relatively decently (assuming no need for glasses/correction), how in the world could their brains develop in infancy to the point where they even begin conceptualizing God, His existence, and acceptance or rejection of Him? They simply aren't able to think in this way because their brains have not developed to the point where they _can_ think about these things. There are any number of fine human growth and development texts out there to talk about infant cognitive development so I'll leave the details to them, but I can tell you what I know from having my own kids. I know that what they thought of in infancy was (not necessarily in this order) a. getting loved and cuddled by mom and dad, b. getting fed when they were hungry, c. getting their diapers changed when they were wet or poopy, and d. exploring the world around them, usually by putting whatever they could reach into their mouths.

My kids really didn't start discussing any kind of religious ideas until they were both nearly 4 years old, and even then it was only in the most concrete ways. Until then, their brains were simply not developed enough to have those kinds of thoughts. About the most they could decide in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' in the toddler years was that hitting/getting hit by another kid was wrong, stealing someone's toys was wrong, and sharing toys was right.

[TK-8252]

Again, being an "atheist" doesn't mean that you have to "reject god."

 

It means that you have no belief in god.

 

Here's one of the definitions of "atheism" from dictionary.com:

 

"a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

 

Are you saying that a baby believes in god? Of course they don't. They're born without any (mis)information except their natural instincts... only when god is introduced to them by their parents, church, the U.S. government, or society in general do they even know what "god" means.

 

And just for kicks, here's another one of the definitions from dictionary.com:

 

"Godlessness; immorality."

[Joetheeskimo]

Consider this: when you were born, you had no knowledge of god. You as a baby were essentially an atheist. You have no believe in god because you aren't aware of the concept of god. Only when - since childhood - you are made to believe that there is a god do you believe in it.

 

That is untrue. All of the real Christians I know say they became a Christian around the 17- to 22-year-old age range. Most Christians will admit that the things taught during childhood, while important, aren't fundamental to their faith; they actually accept Christianity for themselves at a mature age when they look at it from their point of view, and not their parents'. Of course, some don't, too. Some Christian-raised kids end up rejecting it. But no Christian will tell you they became a Christian at age 5 when they started attending Sunday School. How did the first Christians come to be? They became Christians when the apostles told them about it; they were 30-year-olds; they had grown up all their lives with some polytheistic religion. But they accepted it for themselves.

[TK-8252]

Not sure what you mean by "real Christian."

[Joetheeskimo]

Someone who's accepted Christianity for themselves after taking a serious look at it, and not because they've been forced to or been taught to as a child.

[TK-8252]

Someone who's accepted Christianity for themselves after taking a serious look at it, and not because they've been forced to or been taught to as a child.

 

That would exclude most all people around the world who call themselves Christians. This also applies to other religions around the world (I'm not intending to bash Christianity specifically).

 

For example: I ask you why are all Hispanics now Catholics? Why is it that they used to worship the sun, fire, etc. but now they follow a bunch of white men in Europe (the Vatican)?

 

Because they were forced by the sword to convert.

[Halo_92]

*pops up*

 

Also I read In history today that A few of the reasons that Most hispanic are catholic is becuase it has been part of their history sice like almost forever.

 

*disappears*

[TK-8252]

*pops up*

 

Also I read In history today that A few of the reasons that Most hispanic are catholic is becuase it has been part of their history sice like almost forever.

 

*disappears*

 

Uhhh no. That's wrong.

 

Hispanics only became Catholic because a bunch of people from Spain came over with orders from the Pope to convert/slaughter non-Christian peoples.

 

Why would you think that they all speak Spanish now??

[SkinWalker]

That still doesn't take away from the fact that when you look at demographics of religious nations in the world (incidently, among the wealthiest nations of the world, the U.S. is the only one that is considered religious -the rest are in the developing world), the parents determine the religious cult that the child will be a member of nearly all of the time.

 

Regardless of how the "first few christians came to be," this is how it is in the world now as well as in antiquity. New cults arise in humanity and are usually imposed upon the populace as state religions, as was the case with christianity. Once christianity was invented, its rituals and rites largely stolen from other cultures, its transmittal as a meme was as any other mainstream cult in society.

 

It does not by definition make them atheists. There is no way to prove that babies have rejected the existence of a deity. Their neurological systems have not developed enough to process such abstract thoughts at that age. If the visual system alone takes an entire year to develop enough where a baby can see relatively decently (assuming no need for glasses/correction), how in the world could their brains develop in infancy to the point where they even begin conceptualizing God, His existence, and acceptance or rejection of Him?

 

That baby, regardless of developmental stage and cognitive ability, is without god(s). It has no information about god(s). This information is given by the caregivers, beginning at a very early age. By the time the child is old enough to mimic the words and actions of the caregivers, it begins also absorbing the routine vernacular and actions of its caregivers, including religious vernacular and actions -just as it would any other language or behavior.

 

The indoctrination begins very early, and some would argue that imposing cult beliefs on a child amounts to child abuse. I agree with this in some extreme examples, particularly when we're discussing christian science practitioners and other cults that believe their god magically heals just for believing in it.

 

And that, among other superstitious beliefs among even moderate theists, is why my criticism of religions as magical poppycock is a fair one. Need I go on? Should I mention the magic of transubstantiation that many adherents believe occurs at communion? Should I go on about the magical thinking that people engage in when they pray? Or the "magic" of idiots like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff, who scam millions of believers in their magical healing? The magic of virgin birth (one wonders where the other 23 chromosomes came from) or rising from the grave (which some cultures call zombieism)? All the sudden, the Stay-Puff Marshmallow man looks possible in comparison. Or the more talked-about Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least.

[Kurgan]

That's a fine idea (and probably close to the truth), however everyone who believes in a god believes that their god is really real, so we need not believe in something that doesn't exist (of course the atheist could say the same in their rejection of whatever God).

 

The exception would be if a person believes that "all gods are one God," in which case they're not an atheist at all. This would apply to many Hindus, Unitarians and pantheists in general.

 

 

Again, Skinwalker, even though you feel that all religion is superstition and all religions are "cults" really isn't helpful for dialouge. I may feel that atheists are pathetic and fools to deny the fact that God is real, but if I go around saying that constantly, people will think I'm a jerk and are likely to just ignore me (or fight). Perhaps a little charity (diplomacy?) is in order.

Besides, it just reinforces the belief in the minds of many religionists that atheists are all a bunch of curmudgeons with no joy in life but tearing other people down. It doesn't matter if you've sworn eternal hostility to every form of bondage on the mind of man or anything like that, the same advice can apply to the most ardent Christian. If they go around just proclaiming everyone is going to hell, how many people are they honestly going to convert (vs. a different approach)?

 

Just a thought.

 

And PS: What you call "magic" others call "the power of God." To a person who accepts the fundamental premises of a religion, belief in such wacky oddball things as a virgin birth, faith healing or what not, follows from the idea of a God who can bend the rules of creation anytime he chooses, since he set the whole dang thing up in the first place. So yes, it is important for the religionist to understand and accept why the secular atheist rejects their beliefs, but on the other hand, the atheist should also accept and understand why these things seem reasonable to the believer. Maybe someday His Noodly Goodness WILL be worshipped as an actual god, but currently it's just a joke, a protest religion, created specifically to poke fun at creationists. Protest religions are there to make a point, not to be an actual source of faith to those who follow it (personally I think Chef Boyardee is much more powerful than even the FSM, and thus more worthy of our praise).

[Joetheeskimo]

its rituals and rites largely stolen from other cultures,

 

Please specify.

[Jae Onasi]

Again, being an "atheist" doesn't mean that you have to "reject god."

 

It means that you have no belief in god.

 

Here's one of the definitions of "atheism" from dictionary.com:

 

"a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

 

 

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia notes atheism is "Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings," and describes it as a positive denial of God/the divine. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary gives the definition as "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

The definition from dictionary.com includes in all 3 sources cited that atheism is also a doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

The common theme in all these definitions is that atheism is not only non-belief but also _denial or disbelief_ of God.

 

Babies and young children are not cognitively able to deny or accept the existence of God, so very young children cannot be either atheists or theists.