Printable View
It seems to be, debate is open, that Christianity wants to put out a logical argument against atheism that can create a middle ground.
But the problem I see is, any logical argument Christianity puts forth is drawn from it's roots in mysticism, which science now has a term for, quantum science. And trying to draw on the roots that has been severed it can't create the logical argument because it is not science, nor is it the marriage of mysticism.
There is no such thing as Christianity. This statement may sound strange coming from someone who calls herself a Christian.
What I mean by that is that you cannot generalize and say "Christianity wants" or "Christianity believes". I am a Christian, an Episcopalian to be more exact, and there are some Christians I have many fewer beliefs in common than with some of the atheists on this forum or with Buddhists or my best friend who is Muslim. There is a huge difference between Christians who are creationists, and Christians who fight to keep creationism out of our schools, Christians who take the bible literally and Christians who believe that you cannot take the bible literally if you wish to take it seriously, Christians who believe that salvation requires being a Christian but only a small fraction of Christians are saved, and Christians who believe in universal salvation (everyone will be saved in the end), Christians who believe they hear God's voice in their heads and Christians who believe that most people who hear God's voice in their head need to get their head examined.
So when you say "Christianity" which Christian group are you talking about? And if you did not have a particular group in mind, be careful not to generalize in a way that virtually creates yet another Christian group that did not exist before.
They are all based off superstition. You can't really call yourself a Christian in any way at all, and also believe that it is compatible with science. Sure, a lot of people try to say they are really into science and also a Christian but they are just in denial and their beliefs don't match up at all. In fact, I would say most people now a days realize religion isn't true but they have always been Christians so just kind of follow along with it, even though they don't have a strong belief in it.
It's true that the term Christianity really was never used until - was it sometime in the 80's? Before that each denomination considered itself separate and they were largely at war with each other as much as with atheism. I believe it was during some important anti-evolution hearing that all the various Christian denominations realized if they all group themselves together against the common enemy they could create a united front with much more power than a bunch of little splinter groups. Thus was Christianity conceived.
I have a very strong belief in Christianity and I would say that my spirituality is becoming more important to me as time goes by. I also have no problems accepting the truth of science. The two to me are compatible. The problem is that some Christians grasp too tightly the parts of the bible that should not be taken literally and insist on contradictions where there should not be any. Jesus had a saying "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are Gods." I think this applies to science just as much as it applied to Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Edit: And I think Christians continue to be divided, oh we may be more civilized about it, but there are huge differences. The kind of Christianity that is fought tooth and nail by scientists and atheists is just one side of it. On the other hand division is not always a bad thing, ultimately no two people believe everything exactly alike, and that is true of Christians and of atheists and of anyone, and we learn from those differences, we grow in understanding by interacting with those who have different ideas, and perhaps it is better for a faith to be diverse because then we are confronted with challenges and opportunities for growth even if we do not look beyond those whom we consider "us", although as you know I do look beyond that and I am coming to the realization that the difference between us versus them is often a false dichotomy. People fight over differences, and do not notice enough the similarities. And that applies to different denominations of Christians, but also to people who are atheists interacting with Christians, I think. I think atheists would be more comfortable with Christians who do not believe in science or who misinterpret it, because then it would be easier to differentiate the us versus them, and people who believe in both science and God do not fit comfortable stereotypes.
Of course - the supposed unification was never in anything but name - it was just a convenient legal union to create a unified front and gain greater political power. Individually, no one group held anywhere near the power of the atheist community, but with all denominations combined they actually outnumbered atheists. This is the only reason they are able to come so close time and time again to getting Creationism taught in schools. Heh - atheists actually should take notes and combine with all religions other than Christianity, since we all share a disbelief in Yaveh. :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoannaB
And of course I totally agree with your ending statements - it's so easy to take sides in the ridiculous war of extremist versus extremist. It's as you move toward the center or away from the argument entirely that you can start to see the picture more clearly, rather than just concentrate on one side of the coin against the other. Unfortunately the extremists are the loudest in each group, so they're the ones everybody hears fighting, and that's why each side (even the non-extremists) get a distorted picture of the other sides's points.
http://i.imgur.com/vs9AG.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Nhuc
Well this may surprise some of you, but Jesus came down to try and end religion. Religion is man's way of reaching God. But you can't reach God. God's standard is perfection, and no one on Earth is perfect. So, Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins, so whoever believes that and accepts that may have eternal life in Heaven. And there're so many prophecies from the Bible that have been fulfilled. People predicted these things, and thousands of years later they happened! I don't know them all, cause there's hundreds, but feel free to look some up if you'd like. But in all truth, there is no real proof to disprove the Bible.
Wait - Jesus came to end religion, so we should all worship him? :shock:
Say WHAAAT??!!
You do realize that huge chunks of the Bible have been completely disproven by science, right? The parts that can't be disproven are the supernatural parts, as by definition the supernatural can never be either proved or disproved. But what does that matter? Why should anybody believe something just because it can't be disproven? If you're telling people they should believe in some positive claim, then the burden of proof is on YOU! Otherwise Christians would need to first disprove the existence of all other gods and disprove that no god exists.
Your logic fails sir.
Yes...you have probably never read the Bible based on your argument, where it clearly states what Jesus did and why. So before telling me I'm wrong please have the proper argument to back it up. I'm not trying to be a douche, just saying you know what you know, and I know what I know. Your belief is up to you, I was just clearing up a big misconception.
To add a small thought to the very insightful replies in this thread, I'd also would like to point out that it's not just "science" that defies god. In fact, there are simple premises to be analysed when anyone, regardless of their "division" in terms of belief, states something about god, that use simple reasoning.
I'll give a few examples:
- God is an omniscient being and does...An omniscient being does not have free will. If you know everything there is to know, you already know the choice you are going to make, meaning you can't really change your actions.
- God is a perfect being and does...once again, a perfect being has no free will. God could only make perfectly morally good choices for example, because anything less than that and he would not be perfect. Meaning he is left with all but one course of action. If he had free will, he would be able to make choices, but then he would not be perfect.
- For the biblical god, lust is a sin. But if god knows everything, then he knows what it feels to be lustful. Meaning he...sinned?
These are just a few examples in which reason (without the need for scientific method) can demonstrate how logically impossible some notions of god are.
No, that would not mean he's lusted! And God has destroyed the Earth once, and intends on doing it again(could be today, or a million years, who knows). Now do those sound like moral choices? God gives us free will and has his own. He can't break character though, that is true. But that is so he can be who he can be. He does this so our free will is not broken.
Sorry, I got lost in the part where you seemed to say "he wants us to have free will" but 2 lines before you said "he intends to destroy Earth again". Talk about working in mysterious ways 0.0Quote:
Originally Posted by ineverwakeup97
Ok, well you obviously take the Bible literally. That's a rather extreme view, and if I argue against it then I risk being seen as taking the opposing extremist view, that of strong atheism (the belief that there is no god, which is quite different from a lack of belief in any gods). I should learn not to take the bait when people make these easy target claims, but sometimes it's just too easy not to - hey, I never claimed to be perfect! :cheeky:
So with that I withdraw from the argument :poof:
God can't be perfect if he does the stuff the bible says he does, which are often outright evil and disgusting.
When they put Jesus' corpse in the crypt, he was actually in a quantum super position for 3 days, until an angel investigated the isolated chamber. If nobody had ever gone there, he would still be in a simultaneous state of alive/dead to this day, and our sins would both be forgiven and not forgiven. This truly shows God's benevolence, hallelujah.
Yup, we know for sure that some parts of the bible were written by some very sick men who had very strange ideas of what is devine. We actually have written proof of that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Well of course the whole religion comes from the middle east a couple of millennia ago, so none of the stonings, genocides, restrictions on women or any of the rest of it should be at all surprising.
God wiped out humanity once because the world was what its like today. He wanted to restart, and even gave the chance for people to save themselves but they didn't listen to Noah, who warned them. But since humans made the shit hit the fan again, God gave us an easy way into Heaven. He has never sinned, because its against his character to do so. How is destroying your own creation a sin? And then giving it a second chance to redeem itself? And then giving us the easiest way possible to get into Heaven? I'm telling ya, some people just don't understand. It's hard to explain, because I'm still only about 1.5 years into my Christian walk, but it all comes together. I understand you atheists love to debate it and laugh at us, but give us a break!!! We don't walk around all day saying "Too bad they're going to hell..." No no no, we feel bad for people. But, what you believe is up to you. I was just trying to help explain some common misconceptions.
Why would God put atheists in hell? For misunderstanding and refusing to believe without proof? I don't believe God who loves all humans and understands human nature would do that. Only God knows of course what happens after death, but I would be surprised if an atheist who is a good person were punished by God. Of course, there is the option that God loves humans so much that he is even willing to stop loving those who do not want his love. But given how I believe that God's love is like that of a parent, I think that is unlikely after all.
Edit: This bible passage particularly can be interpretted as saying that knowing God is not a prerequisite to salvation http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passa...40&version=ESV
He doesn't put them in hell. God loves us all, no matter what. But His standard for Heaven is perfection, and all have sinned on this Earth. So we don't meet the standard. That's why God sent His Son to die for our sins, so that if we believe with our free will we can get into Heaven. People who say stuff like "Fuck you God" or something like that he still loves. Everyone is equal in his eyes. Galatians 3:28 is great example of this. "For there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free man, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." God can't just pull everyone into Heaven or make everyone on Earth perfect. He wants us to have free will. If you're an athiest, would you like not being able to do everything you love on Earth? Of course not. That's why we have the choice to believe or not! And being a good person means nothing, because once again, God wants perfection! Since we can't get perfection we have Christ's death to pay for our sins past, present, and future. Ephesians 2:8,9 is another great example. "For you are saved by faith through grace, and this is not of yourselves; it is the free gift of God. And this is not of your works, so that no one may boast." And Joanna, you're confusing me which side you're on. Lol
The world is like it is today because of man's free will. Besides, god knows everything and is omnipotent, so he surely allowed things to be the way it is. Then why would he want to wipe out humanity once again?Quote:
God wiped out humanity once because the world was what its like today.
Noah made it to every single corner of the planet and warned 100% of human population?Quote:
and even gave the chance for people to save themselves but they didn't listen to Noah, who warned them.
"You shall not murder". Murder is a sin according to the bible. Besides, just because a women gave birth to a baby does it means she has the right to kill him?Quote:
He has never sinned, because its against his character to do so. How is destroying your own creation a sin?
Like you said, it's not even worth discussing this. It's not even the lack of proof for anything that you say about god: it's the lack of reason that becomes unbearable, because in any other discussion (like should we cook food or just eat it raw for example) you would be using reason and logic.
Before someone puts the "science vs religion" on the table, let's be honest and open enough to look at "logic and reason vs religion". At the same time, this concept of "atheism" as an entity (the word shouldn't even exist in the first place), makes many theists think that we play under specific rules. We don't, any believer uses reason on a daily basis, but for some reason, it completely dismisses it's value when it comes to talking about it's own believe. There's even a study that indicated that when people refer to what their god thinks about something and what the person herself thinks, they activate the same areas of brain activity, indicating that god values are closely related to what your values are.
She's not someone who thinks in black and white terms. Even though she believes in god just like you do, she understands that discussing religion, morality and god is not all about dichotomies, where you're either "against me" or "with me".Quote:
And Joanna, you're confusing me which side you're on
Why didn't God warn them himself? If people wouldn't listen to a crazy man raving about "THE END TIMES", why didn't just warn them all himself? Also, if God had to restart, doesn't that mean he made a mistake? If he made a mistake, wouldn't that mean he is not perfect?Quote:
Originally Posted by ineverwakeup97
Furthermore, why did God need to commit genocide in order to give us "an easy way into Heaven"? Why couldn't he just transport everyone there, like a rapture or something?
Because we're created in God's image. And no, Noah didn't reach the whole world, but he told everyone who lived by him. They had the chance to start a new population. I did further research, and God did in fact give the people of Earth several chances to fix themselves, but they freely chose not to listen. And in fact, humanity was more fucked up than it is now. There was literally like no one who ever did good. It was like today's world on steroids. Plus, sin is not doing bad things! Sin is not doing what God Himself says to do. So God can say "I'm going to destroy the evil on this Earth so there can be good again." and this is not sin. For example, God told Abram to murder his own son. Abram attempted but God stopped him. It was a faith test. Even if he'd murdered Isaac it would not be sin, because he did as God said. But God told him to stop, so it would be a sin if he disobeyed. We simply have the Bible to know what is sin and what is not. It's no rule book. Plus, everyone who wrote it spoke from God's understanding, not their own. I'm tired of writing out verses, but a good back up for this point is 2 Peter 1:20-21 if you'd like to read it.
I am really glad you bring up the passage about Abraham and Isaac.
Two alternative interpretations of that passage which I think are both possible:
(1) what if God never told Abraham to kill Isaac? What if Abraham was mentally ill and thought he heard God's voice but what he interpretted as God's voice was actually a voice in his head that was not God's? What if then God intervened and said, do not sacrifice your son, I would never wish you to do that.
(2) This second interpretation of this passage actually was brought to my attention by my Muslim friend. She believes that God said to Abraham "Sacrifice to me that which is the most precious to you" without specifying Isaac, and because Isaac was the most precious to him Abraham misinterpreted God's will as to be to kill his own son, which he should have known could not have been God's will because God would never want us to kill our children.
In both of these interpretations Abraham fails the initial faith test, and only succeeds the final test.
However, since we can know this story only from Abraham's after the fact account, since Abraham was human, he would not admit to it that he so thoroughly misunderstood God's will or mistook that voice in his head for God's. So because the bible was written based on Abraham's account of what happened, we may not have gotten the full correct story there.
And yes, I do not look at things as black and white, and I am not on one side of this argument or the other but rather am hoping to help others see that there is more than two sides.