• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Case for Christianity

DBT said:
Exploring ideas and appreciating the wonders of nature may be called 'spiritual experiences,' but this is not the same as spiritual things that are believed in religion, a spirit realm populated with supernatural entities, etc.
Click to expand...
Supernatural stuff has outlived its usefulness by more than a century IMO.
Prior to that, there was much left to explain. Things like the weather, lightning, volcanism, asteroid strikes, things that were real and affected people in cruel and seemingly random ways. Supernatural explanations satisfied the need for a benign omnipotence, and gave excuse to authoritarian religions.
beyond any known possibility
Information storage technology alone, has now removed the excuse. But people tend to maintain the religious attitudes of their parents (I’m not claiming exception here) even if they don’t drink the wine and bite the body-biscuit.
I feel like it should be easy to extract value from the Bible or other scriptures without needing to believe all of it - or any of it - is literally true.
I’m not hard to please - I even used to read reams of trash SCI Fi. It never bothered me that time travel entails paradoxes, that intergalactic human travel is impossible FAPP or that there’s no fucking air on Mars.

Why should religions get to be tax free for telling stories, and charge people (challenge them to have the sincerity of belief to financially support them) promising their personal preferred treatment by a patently impossible deity?
It’s fraud.
How many churches spend higher percentages of their incomes on ‘the needy’ than on their facilities, personnel and their proslytizing? I’m guessing none of the majors.
 
steve_bank said:
The ideological atheist communist systems
Click to expand...
No such thing. Xian spin.
Atheists have nothing to say about economic systems.
And are mostly anti-athority. god being the ultimate authority.
Brunswick1954 said:
It needs to be carefully read and understood.
Click to expand...
The bible, No it doesn't.
Only if you want to understand it.
I have read enough to know I don't give a shit about it.
It is like undigested corn kernals in a cow patty.
Yes there are kernals of truth in the bible. But it ain't worth the trouble, when you can get good corn anywhere.
DBT said:
What is ''true Christianity?" What does it look like?
Click to expand...
It looks just like a 'true Scottsman'.
 
Learner said:
unapologetic said:
steve_bank said:
Anti religion narratives focus on the negatives of religion but not on the negatives elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Well the subject was 'religion'. Are you trying to move the goalposts?
You want to talk about the drug problem? I have opinions on that, you won't like.
You talk like religion (conformaty) is the solution to every social problem. It is definatly NOT. It only claims to be. Especially problems the cults dreamed up.
Click to expand...

Not sure what it is you were reading but steve-b was on topic.
Narrative on religion (positives or negatives) ARE about religion.
Click to expand...
I'm getting confused. It sounded to me like he was sayin 'whadabout' the negatives elsewhere.
I was replying, the negatives elsewhere are off topic.
If that was not what he was saying, I resind my reply.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
I'm just an atheist, and I don't really care about the other descriptions. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I'll add, besides science-informed. But science isn't even the main way I determine something is true or false. It's just one tool I use.
 
Wiploc said:
bilby said:
...
I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything;
Click to expand...

I've never understood this. You have no knowledge of any kind? You're not really sure you're a scientist? You're not sure that you're not 100% sure of anything? You're not even sure that you think you're a scientist? You're not sure that you probably think you're probably a scientist?

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just expressing bafflement.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to preempt the tedious meta-discussion that always ensues when a scientific claim is expressed as a fact. Of course, I am certain. As I explicitly said, "I am as sure of that as I am of anything".

But I am not dogmatically certain; I am prepared to examine and consider contrary evidence, and (if it is compelling) to change my mind.

I have no expectation that such evidence will be forthcoming, but in the incredibly unlikely event that it was, I would not reject it out of hand.

If it were unequivocally demonstrated to me that what I currently call "reality" is in fact entirely illusory, and that I inhabit The Matrix and am being used as a power source by aliens, or some shit, then every single thing I currently know would be up for review.

I might need to start by developing a new system of numbers that can express just how infinitesimally small the probability of this happening really is; But that small number never quite reaches zero.
 
bilby said:
Wiploc said:
bilby said:
...
I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything;
Click to expand...

I've never understood this. You have no knowledge of any kind? You're not really sure you're a scientist? You're not sure that you're not 100% sure of anything? You're not even sure that you think you're a scientist? You're not sure that you probably think you're probably a scientist?

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just expressing bafflement.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to preempt the tedious meta-discussion that always ensues when a scientific claim is expressed as a fact. Of course, I am certain. As I explicitly said, "I am as sure of that as I am of anything".

But I am not dogmatically certain; I am prepared to examine and consider contrary evidence, and (if it is compelling) to change my mind.

I have no expectation that such evidence will be forthcoming, but in the incredibly unlikely event that it was, I would not reject it out of hand.

If it were unequivocally demonstrated to me that what I currently call "reality" is in fact entirely illusory, and that I inhabit The Matrix and am being used as a power source by aliens, or some shit, then every single thing I currently know would be up for review.

I might need to start by developing a new system of numbers that can express just how infinitesimally small the probability of this happening really is; But that small number never quite reaches zero.
Click to expand...

Personally have never understood the confusion over not knowing anything 100%. Why must we be 100% certain of anything? We can still be 95%, 90%, or 85% certain, etc. That doesn't mean "we don't know anything" if we're 95% certain of something. That's not good enough?
 
GenesisNemesis said:
bilby said:
Wiploc said:
bilby said:
...
I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything;
Click to expand...

I've never understood this. You have no knowledge of any kind? You're not really sure you're a scientist? You're not sure that you're not 100% sure of anything? You're not even sure that you think you're a scientist? You're not sure that you probably think you're probably a scientist?

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just expressing bafflement.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to preempt the tedious meta-discussion that always ensues when a scientific claim is expressed as a fact. Of course, I am certain. As I explicitly said, "I am as sure of that as I am of anything".

But I am not dogmatically certain; I am prepared to examine and consider contrary evidence, and (if it is compelling) to change my mind.

I have no expectation that such evidence will be forthcoming, but in the incredibly unlikely event that it was, I would not reject it out of hand.

If it were unequivocally demonstrated to me that what I currently call "reality" is in fact entirely illusory, and that I inhabit The Matrix and am being used as a power source by aliens, or some shit, then every single thing I currently know would be up for review.

I might need to start by developing a new system of numbers that can express just how infinitesimally small the probability of this happening really is; But that small number never quite reaches zero.
Click to expand...

Personally have never understood the confusion over not knowing anything 100%. Why must we be 100% certain of anything? We can still be 95%, 90%, or 85% certain, etc. That doesn't mean "we don't know anything" if we're 95% certain of something. That's not good enough?
Click to expand...

That is pretty much the standard in science. High probability “proofs,” not absolute proofs.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
bilby said:
Wiploc said:
bilby said:
...
I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything;
Click to expand...

I've never understood this. You have no knowledge of any kind? You're not really sure you're a scientist? You're not sure that you're not 100% sure of anything? You're not even sure that you think you're a scientist? You're not sure that you probably think you're probably a scientist?

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just expressing bafflement.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to preempt the tedious meta-discussion that always ensues when a scientific claim is expressed as a fact. Of course, I am certain. As I explicitly said, "I am as sure of that as I am of anything".

But I am not dogmatically certain; I am prepared to examine and consider contrary evidence, and (if it is compelling) to change my mind.

I have no expectation that such evidence will be forthcoming, but in the incredibly unlikely event that it was, I would not reject it out of hand.

If it were unequivocally demonstrated to me that what I currently call "reality" is in fact entirely illusory, and that I inhabit The Matrix and am being used as a power source by aliens, or some shit, then every single thing I currently know would be up for review.

I might need to start by developing a new system of numbers that can express just how infinitesimally small the probability of this happening really is; But that small number never quite reaches zero.
Click to expand...

Personally have never understood the confusion over not knowing anything 100%. Why must we be 100% certain of anything? We can still be 95%, 90%, or 85% certain, etc. That doesn't mean "we don't know anything" if we're 95% certain of something. That's not good enough?
Click to expand...
Well, that depends on what you are using the knowledge for.

When a theory held to be true, and that theory underpins a vast array of other theories as a premise taken for granted, and then that theory is shown to be false, it causes a massive upheaval.

When Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian gravitation theory was wrong, the repurcussions were enormous.

Of course, Newton wasn't wildly and totally wrong; For most practical purposes, Newtonian gravity is a "close enough is good enough" description of reality. Gravity may not give Mercury exactly the orbit Newton predicted, but it didn't suddenly make rocks fall up, either.

Quantum field theory may be wrong in ways that lead to the discovery of exotic particles with measurable effects on subatomic scales, or galactic scales; But it's not wrong enough to allow for a mechanism to exist that could permit human consciousness to survive the physical destruction of the brain*.

For an afterlife to be possible, quantum field theory would need to be wrong on a level similar to the error in gravitational theory that would lead to rocks routinely rolling up cliff faces.






* We know the brain contols our bodies, and that our minds control our bodies via the brain. If our minds are somehow immaterial things (eg a "soul") that could potentially survive without the physical brain, then the two must be able to communicate. Obviously, any such communication must entail some kind of interaction with matter (because the brain is matter); And QFT describes all of the possible interactions matter has, or can ever have, at scales larger than atoms and smaller than solar systems. There is no possible way for a soul to interact with an individual human. Unless QFT is so wildly wrong that rocks routinely falling upwards would be the least of our unexplained observations.
 
bilby said:
Wiploc said:
bilby said:
...
I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything;
Click to expand...

I've never understood this. You have no knowledge of any kind? You're not really sure you're a scientist? You're not sure that you're not 100% sure of anything? You're not even sure that you think you're a scientist? You're not sure that you probably think you're probably a scientist?

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just expressing bafflement.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to preempt the tedious meta-discussion that always ensues when a scientific claim is expressed as a fact. Of course, I am certain. As I explicitly said, "I am as sure of that as I am of anything".

But I am not dogmatically certain; I am prepared to examine and consider contrary evidence, and (if it is compelling) to change my mind.

I have no expectation that such evidence will be forthcoming, but in the incredibly unlikely event that it was, I would not reject it out of hand.

If it were unequivocally demonstrated to me that what I currently call "reality" is in fact entirely illusory, and that I inhabit The Matrix and am being used as a power source by aliens, or some shit, then every single thing I currently know would be up for review.

I might need to start by developing a new system of numbers that can express just how infinitesimally small the probability of this happening really is; But that small number never quite reaches zero.
Click to expand...

Cool. Well said.
 

Why Christianity?​

If reality is a spiritual experience—as I argued earlier—then the deepest truths of life are not grasped by logic alone, but lived through the conscious, interpretive self. We don’t work with facts, we interpret them. Science itself is such an interpretation. We need the world to be rational and have meaning. Love, purpose, justice, equity vs equality are not just personal desires but universal truths that we use to judge one another as well as ourselves.

So: Why Christianity?
Firstly, moral behaviour is a fundamental human expectation we have of one another. It's a deeper concern than I will be able to get into here and much of it you will have been exposed to. What I want to point to though is that morality is not, to the human spirit, a social code. It's a reflection of our personal character. We are moral because we seek to be noble.

The moral code is sufficiently addressed in many philosophies and religions (although during the time of Jesus, the link between religion and morality is more tenuous). The central issue that Jesus embodied is that this moral code has its source in God. And the moral code is, simply, to love God and love one another. Not only that, love is the meaning and fulfilment of our life.

He expects us to know what to do based solely on this predicate. And the evidence that God exists is him. He was prophesied and he fulfilled those prophecies.

It's as simple as that. Is love the fundamental motivation in our lives? Is it right for us to love our neighbour, even our enemies? Can we love those we do not trust? That's his challenge. Love one another and all will fall into place. It seems obvious but it's so much more than that. You need help to do this, you need help to live your life as you should. Your best help is God.
 
So: Why not Christianity?
Firstly, moral behaviour is a fundamental human expectation we have of one another. It's a deeper concern than I will be able to get into here and much of it you will have been exposed to. What I want to point to though is that morality is, to the human spirit, a social code. It's a reflection of our personal character, as we would like others to see us. We are moral because we seek to be noble.

The moral code is sufficiently addressed in many philosophies and religions (although during the time of Jesus, the link between religion and morality is more tenuous). The central issue that Christians claim is that this moral code has its source in God. And the moral code is, simply, to love God and love one another. But if we take away God, and just love one another, we achieve the exact same ends. Not only that, love is the meaning and fulfilment of our life.

Society expects us to know what to do based on every social interaction in our lives. And the evidence that God exists is nonexistent. He was prophesied but he never fulfilled those prophecies.

It's as simple as that. Is love the fundamental motivation in our lives? Is it right for us to love our neighbour, even our enemies? Can we love those we do not trust? That's our challenge. Love one another and all will fall into place. It seems obvious but it's so much more than that. You need help to do this, you need help to live your life as you should. Your best help is a caring society.
 
Brunswick1954 said:
. And the evidence that God exists is him. He was prophesied and he fulfilled those prophecies.
Click to expand...
The NT prophecy claims are anything but irrefutable evidence. To cite two examples:
1) MT 2: 15 claims that Joseph took Mary and baby Jesus to Egypt, a story which no other gospel has, and that their return from Egypt somehow fulfills Hosea 11:1, "out of Egypt I called my son". Hosea 11 has nothing to do with Jesus or a Messiah; it's clearly referring to the Exodus.
2) In Luke 4:17-21, Jesus is quoted as proclaiming that he has fulfilled Isaiah 61:1 through his ministry. But Isaiah 61 is addressed to the Israelites of 5 centuries previous, and makes clear references to the end of the Babylonian captivity.
The gospel writers pulled any OT verse they could find that seemed to have a parallel in their Jesus narratives. Anyone can play this game. Matthew claims to find the virgin birth forecast in Isaiah 7. But honest translations say 'young woman', not 'virgin', and anyone reading Is. 7:13-16 without the blinders of dogma should be able to tell that this is not a prophecy of Jesus.
 
@Brunswick1954 seems to be oblivious that his argument is completely unchanged if you remove God from it entirely.

Some Christian churches will give you all the advice and help you need to develop yourself as a good, kind and charitable person, and then lie to your face and tell you that Christianity is the source of, and only way to find, this goodness, kindness and charity.

And the lie is easy to swallow, because the positive results of being good, kind, and charitable are undeniable. They just don't require any Gods, any messiahs, or any priests.

You can be good without God. Or, indeed, with ANY God(s). You can also be cruel, unkind, and selfish with or without any Gods.

Gods are irrelevant to morality. And one of the most commonplace immoral acts is to lie to people, and claim that a particular God is the ONLY path to moral behaviour.
 
Bruns is a skillful writer, well-spoken, graceful. But the content is -- for me -- mush. Feeling-centered. Non-specific when demonstration is called for. I doubt whether the born-agains in my family would be satisfied with his approach; they want clear and unqualified reliance on scripture, including all the extreme stuff. And for the freethinkers who dominate this site, he or she doesn't penetrate at all.
 
Brunswick1954 said:

Why Christianity?​

If reality is a spiritual experience—as I argued earlier—then the deepest truths of life are not grasped by logic alone, but lived through the conscious, interpretive self. We don’t work with facts, we interpret them. Science itself is such an interpretation. We need the world to be rational and have meaning. Love, purpose, justice, equity vs equality are not just personal desires but universal truths that we use to judge one another as well as ourselves.

So: Why Christianity?
Firstly, moral behaviour is a fundamental human expectation we have of one another. It's a deeper concern than I will be able to get into here and much of it you will have been exposed to. What I want to point to though is that morality is not, to the human spirit, a social code. It's a reflection of our personal character. We are moral because we seek to be noble.

The moral code is sufficiently addressed in many philosophies and religions (although during the time of Jesus, the link between religion and morality is more tenuous). The central issue that Jesus embodied is that this moral code has its source in God. And the moral code is, simply, to love God and love one another. Not only that, love is the meaning and fulfilment of our life.

He expects us to know what to do based solely on this predicate. And the evidence that God exists is him. He was prophesied and he fulfilled those prophecies.

It's as simple as that. Is love the fundamental motivation in our lives? Is it right for us to love our neighbour, even our enemies? Can we love those we do not trust? That's his challenge. Love one another and all will fall into place. It seems obvious but it's so much more than that. You need help to do this, you need help to live your life as you should. Your best help is God.
Click to expand...

Reality is not spiritual experience. Reality is a physical experience, a physical universe being experienced by a physical brain with physical senses where a virtual representation of the world is being physically generated as a means of interacting with the physical objects and events of an objective world.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
Personally have never understood the confusion over not knowing anything 100%. Why must we be 100% certain of anything? We can still be 95%, 90%, or 85% certain, etc. That doesn't mean "we don't know anything" if we're 95% certain of something. That's not good enough?
Click to expand...

Certainly NOT good enough. A class of decisions I make several times a week is whether to execute a U-turn against on-coming traffic. Although I don't actually resort to arithmetic I do need to assess my chance of success. If 95% were good enough I'd have totaled my car several times by now. In fact I don't think it shows excessive fondness for life to want a probability of success somewhere north of 99.99%.

To guesstimate the probability that God(s) exist(s), I'd need a clear definition of "God." In one of Tegmark's models The Nature of Mathematics Itself is the "Creator God." On a more religious note, I do NOT rule out some form of Teleology, but am too obtuse to decide if this paper intersects with such.
 
I am 100% certain that 99% of religions are cults.
I am 100% certain that 99% of cults are scams.
I am 100% certain that 50% of scams are about control, 50% are about money, and 50% are both.
(and 10% of readers will nitpick my math)
 
Brunswick1954 said:

Why Christianity?​

If reality is a spiritual experience—as I argued earlier—then the deepest truths of life are not grasped by logic alone, but lived through the conscious, interpretive self. We don’t work with facts, we interpret them. Science itself is such an interpretation. We need the world to be rational and have meaning. Love, purpose, justice, equity vs equality are not just personal desires but universal truths that we use to judge one another as well as ourselves.

So: Why Christianity?
Firstly, moral behaviour is a fundamental human expectation we have of one another. It's a deeper concern than I will be able to get into here and much of it you will have been exposed to. What I want to point to though is that morality is not, to the human spirit, a social code. It's a reflection of our personal character. We are moral because we seek to be noble.

The moral code is sufficiently addressed in many philosophies and religions (although during the time of Jesus, the link between religion and morality is more tenuous). The central issue that Jesus embodied is that this moral code has its source in God. And the moral code is, simply, to love God and love one another. Not only that, love is the meaning and fulfilment of our life.

He expects us to know what to do based solely on this predicate. And the evidence that God exists is him. He was prophesied and he fulfilled those prophecies.

It's as simple as that. Is love the fundamental motivation in our lives? Is it right for us to love our neighbour, even our enemies? Can we love those we do not trust? That's his challenge. Love one another and all will fall into place. It seems obvious but it's so much more than that. You need help to do this, you need help to live your life as you should. Your best help is God.
Click to expand...

You really don’t say much of anything here, and give us no reason why we can’t practice and experience love and a moral life without god. In fact, we can — nonbelievers do this all the time,. How do account for that?

You also contradict yourself. Earlier you said it all “falls apart without god.” But then later you said the question of whether there was a literal resurrection is “trivial.” Trivial? If there was no resurrection there is no Christian God, the very thing you said we need or if all “falls apart.” You can’t have it both ways,

Maybe you just mean we need a picture of God in our heads, not a literal God, to behave morally. This too is false, because people behave morally all the tine without a picture of God in their heads.

So you’ve made no case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom