120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[skepticalbip]

Obviously there's no point quibbling about specific Christian doctrines if you aren't even willing to grant certain things as theoretically plausible just for the sake of the argument.

There's no point debating Christian Particularism if your starting point is that God and the afterlife is non-existent.

You misstate the position. There was no claim that god was non-existent. The claim was that there was no rational reason given to believe there is such a critter.

In fact it comes across as disingenuousness to feign interest in debate then, (when the going gets tough,) knocking over the chess pieces with a hand wave claim that...oh yeah! Well there's no hell, no God anyway so there!

The debate comes with the theist's attempts to demonstrate that there is a god.

ETA:
As I said, you don't seem to understand what atheism is. You want to start a debate with both sides agreeing there is a god and afterlife and then debate the nature of both. That would be a debate between two theists not between a theist and an atheist.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheism versus Theism is a different discussion than...

...oh well even if God(s) exist that doesn't get you to the Christian God

I mistakenly thought this thread Op was against Christian Particularism.

Why bother defending the doctrine of Atonement or the Trinity or Hell if all discussions revert back to..."there's no evidence for any God(s)"? Or..."Jesus never did any miracles because He never existed."

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm a theist first.
Then a monotheist second.
Then a biblical theist third.
Then a Christian theist fourth.
Then finally, a Nicene (orthodox) Christian.

kyroot seems to think you can refute all forms of theism by posting lots of special leading, brute assertions about the alleged incoherence or difficulty of certain Christian doctrines - which is nothing more than saying...if Christianity is true, why don't I agree with it? #circular_reasoning

 

[skepticalbip]

Atheism versus Theism is a different discussion than...

...oh well even if God(s) exist that doesn't get you to the Christian God

You are right, atheism vs. theism is a different discussion. But then there is nothing wrong with either atheists or theists who find Christians holding several mutually exclusive beliefs pointing out that those beliefs are in conflict with each other.

 

[Learner]

Don't you think that its an interesting abstract consideration?
By 'dominion' I don't necessarily mean total control over ever aspect of every single species.
Rather, it's the potential or the ability of Homo sapiens to dominate - if we wanted.
...and use that superior intelligence to outwit the competitive species.

Considering from outside theology a 'survival of the fittest' a 'Natural Selection' maybe? Atheists may have agreed all along unwittingly

(Jesting)

 

[Keith&Co.]

(Jesting)

'Jesting' that evolution is an atheist issue? Not very funny, Learner.
But in that context, your chosen forum name is hilarious...

 

[Lion IRC]

That wasn't a suggestion that evolution is an 'atheist' issue.

Evolution is a theistic issue.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That wasn't a suggestion that evolution is an 'atheist' issue.

HAHAHAHA!

 

[funinspace]

Sure, 'smartness' or intelligence has a value. However, it is just one criteria. One can hardly use just this one category. In fact humans most certainly don't just use this one criteria. If humans did, then we wouldn't eat pigs and wouldn't go ape shit when someone wants some horse steak. Instead, we eat pork chops, and pass laws protecting horses being sold for meat. If we allowed dogs to be treated like we allow pig factories to treat pigs, people would loose their minds. Yet, these animals are about the same intelligence; and one has animal cruelty laws to protect it, and the other doesn't.

How many want rats as pets over turtles? Rats are certainly smarter, but somehow far more humans seem to like turtles more.

Yes, there are other factors.

Thank you, and that was one of my points.

The human pleasure for one kind of pet vs. another can be more important (for choosing a pet) than the smartness of the rat, or possum, or skunk, etc. The human pleasure overrides most of the other criteria, but this is only because humans are the smartest and most valuable. So ultimately smartness is a very high-priority criterion.

The smartness of the pet might be less important than just the human pleasure, which might choose a pet that's cuter or easier to care for, etc., in preference to a smart pet. But in that case it's the human smartness or superiority that decides it. So still it's the smartness that's ultimately valued.

Ah, a smartness clause…lol Do you make this up as you go?

If smartness is not a value, then why do we try to become smarter? Why do we want kids to become educated?

Of course it is of high value. That is why no one gives a fuck about ethics, cuz smartness is so valuable...

Whatever this means, ethics requires that we give priority to smartness, or that we give higher priority to the smarter animal, all else being equal.

So, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, it is right (or ethically required) to give priority to the higher-value creatures over the lower-value creatures. In some cases this might require protecting a creature that has little value or attractiveness to us, like the condors which are endangered.

The higher intelligence of the condor might require that we protect it, but less so another endangered species because it's not as smart. Even if it's cuter, we still give it less protection, or let it go extinct, because it has lower value overall, being less smart.

Funny how the Endangered Species Act doesn’t give priority to smartness of the critter. Though the agency(s) do have criteria…but this would take us even further down another rabbit hole….

Anywho, let’s say that Yahweh came to you in a dream. He told you that you would only have one son/child. However, he would grant you a choice. (1) You could have a super smart son. He will go off to Columbia University on a full scholarship and graduate with honors. However, he will develop a really bad lacking of ethics or caring for others. He will cheat when he thinks he won’t get caught. He will do whatever it takes to make big money on Wall Street and cares not a whit about what he does to customers. He only pays support for his bastard child as the court has required him to. He is always on the prowl for a pretty babe to take for a night or two and then moves on.

Or (2) you can have a very average son. He only graduates from HS. He goes to work in something very ordinary. He is able to pay his bills, but not a lot beyond that. He finds his love and marries; and will have 2 children. He is respected in his neighborhood and at work. He takes his ‘till death do you part’ very seriously and they remain a relatively happy couple thru their lives.

Which son would you ask to have; the smart one or the ethical one?

 

[Atheos]

The fact that you cannot see how invalid this argument is perplexes me. 2 + 2 = 4 was true before dolphins or mice existed and will continue to be true . . .

How long the fact has been true does not make it any more or any less true. Even if it's true for only one day or one hour, still it is true, i.e., or that this was the case is true, even if the condition changes and that condition ceases to exist. Still it WAS true, and it's a fact that it was true. An empirical fact is just as true as 2 + 2 = 4, with the only difference being that the certainty of our knowledge of the empirical fact might be less. Only 99% certain rather than 100%.

But even if our certainty is less, that fact is still true as much as 2 + 2 = 4. If it really happened, then it's so, and it's true just as surely as 2 + 2 = 4.

. . . for as long as this universe persists. "Superior" is an opinion. "Equals" is a fact.

If the "opinion" is true, then it's a fact just as much as 2 + 2 = 4.

If "god" isn't the greatest porn star that ever lived then it's not the greatest at everything.

This is silly. However, the answer is simply that "god" is powerful enough that he/she/it could perform, or cause to be performed, any act which the porn star can do.

It isn't necessary that "god" actually does perform the same acts. All that's necessary is that he/she/it has the power to do those same acts.

There's no sense in saying "god" has to do all the same acts in order to be the "greatest." But "god" has the power to do it.

If it's not the greatest at everything then it's not the maximally greatest being.

Being the most powerful is what matters. Not actually doing everything, but being able to.

End of discussion.

Yes, now that you've been corrected.

Your original statement implied that dolphins' superiority to mice is true in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. While I agree that there can be statements that are temporarily true I was merely pointing out one difference between 2 + 2 = 4 and your baseless assertion about the superiority of dolphins over mice. The former really is a law that the universe imposes on us. The statement you made (and I still assert that it is not true) is a category error comparing a baseless assertion to a universal principal.

I guarantee you that for everything you can enumerate that dolphins can do better than mice I can enumerate something a mouse can do better than a dolphin. And obviously for every trait you can enumerate that makes a dolphin different from a mouse I can enumerate a trait that a mouse has that makes it different from a dolphin. It then becomes nothing more than a matter of opinion as to which of these list items are more valuable. Your arguments that "Anyone can see how superior x is compared to y" is the exact same mentality people were using in 1860 to argue that white people were superior to black people. Wasn't true then, isn't true now. Never will be.

So now it appears that both you and Lion IRC are in agreement that might makes right. Being the most powerful is what matters.

I extend to you and Lion IRC (and anyone else who wants to demonstrate the power of this imaginary friend of theirs) the same challenge. In front of me is a 3x5 index card with which I originally challenged a former theist on this very board (Self-Mutation) to pray to his god that he either flip the card over (demonstrating power to do even the most trivial thing imaginable) or simply reveal to him the sequence of letters and digits I wrote on the card. It's been 6 years now and the card still lays face down right where I placed it when I originally offered the challenge.

I just now reached forward and cleared a bunch of junk off the card. A pair of fingernail clippers, a pocket knife, a small remote, a key ring, two or three screws, a multimeter, some batteries and at least one or two thumb drives. I didn't turn the card over, but I could have. I am powerful enough to turn that card over. Is this imaginary friend of yours that powerful? According to the bible Jesus promised you could move a mountain if you had even a modicum of faith. This index card should be a snap. In the interest of full disclosure the card is underneath a small lead weight. And a key happens to be on it as well. Over the years much of the junk on the workbench surrounding it was on top of it, but I've tried to make it as easy on your invisible friend as possible and almost completely cleared it off as you can see here:



I've always maintained that although I'm a skeptic I'm also an honest person. If the card is face up tomorrow I will own up that I was wrong and apologize to everyone here. Or if you simply post up the sequence of letters and digits I'll play fair. While neither shows omnipotence, at least they show some small degree of potency. I really am a seeker of truth. It is simply the fact that there is no compelling reason to believe in this god of yours. And I used to be a devout believer, even going so far as to be a preacher for 16 years. That has nothing to do with the veracity of my stance now, but it does go towards demonstrating that I really tried to be a believer.

So, no, you didn't "correct" me. You offered rationalizations, and not very good ones at that. I have offered you the means by which to correct me. What will you counter with? Results or more rationalizations?

 

[Lion IRC]

I extend to you and Lion IRC (and anyone else who wants to demonstrate the power of this imaginary friend of theirs) the same challenge. In front of me is a 3x5 index card...

Why this common trait among skeptics? Putting God to the proof.

...God, you will first obey me, then I will decide for myself if I want to obey You.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why this common trait among skeptics?

That's kinda the definition of skeptics, innit?
Doubt, until given a good reason to accept it as truth?
Works for internet stories, celebrity quotes, unbelievably cheap concert tickets, gods, demons, Nigerian princes, people who prescribe quack remedies, and Uncle Frank who steals your nose.

You make it sound like a failing, but the opposite of skeptic is 'gullible.'

 

[Lion IRC]

Well I guess if you want to lump everything into the same basket all equally deserving of skeptical disdain that's your business. I don't think calling God a 'quack' or likening Him to an Internet scam is gonna have the desired effect.

 

[skepticalbip]

I extend to you and Lion IRC (and anyone else who wants to demonstrate the power of this imaginary friend of theirs) the same challenge. In front of me is a 3x5 index card...

Why this common trait among skeptics? Putting God to the proof.

...God, you will first obey me, then I will decide for myself if I want to obey You.

As a skeptic, I am astounded that anyone would accept anything at TRUTH without some reasonable evidence. But then con men make a damned good living on the fact that many people aren't skeptical enough.

Why would someone's assertion that there is a god with whatever traits their particular religion claims be any more believable than that email from a Nigerian prince that is willing to share part of his wealth if you will give him your bank account information so he can transfer it to you?

 

[bilby]

Why this common trait among skeptics? Putting God to the proof.

...God, you will first obey me, then I will decide for myself if I want to obey You.

As a skeptic, I am astounded that anyone would accept anything at TRUTH without some reasonable evidence. But then con men make a damned good living on the fact that many people aren't skeptical enough.

Why would someone's assertion that there is a god with whatever traits their particular religion claims be any more believable than that email from a Nigerian prince that is willing to share part of his wealth if you will give him your bank account information so he can transfer it to you?

Why this common trait among skeptics? Putting Nigerian princes to the proof.

 

[skepticalbip]

As a skeptic, I am astounded that anyone would accept anything at TRUTH without some reasonable evidence. But then con men make a damned good living on the fact that many people aren't skeptical enough.

Why would someone's assertion that there is a god with whatever traits their particular religion claims be any more believable than that email from a Nigerian prince that is willing to share part of his wealth if you will give him your bank account information so he can transfer it to you?

Why this common trait among skeptics? Putting Nigerian princes to the proof.

Oh shit!!! Now I have gone and let slip that all skeptics are racists.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well I guess if you want to lump everything into the same basket all equally deserving of skeptical disdain that's your business.

Well, the approach also works for love, aged cheeses, friendship, loan offers, job offers, etc.
Skepticism is the process of wanting and seeking/waiting for a reason to believe.

I don't think calling God a 'quack' or likening Him to an Internet scam is gonna have the desired effect.

I said that skepticism works the same, not that God is a quack or like a quack.

And what is the 'desired effect' of being skeptical about the gods on offer by mankind?

 

[skepticalbip]

Well I guess if you want to lump everything into the same basket all equally deserving of skeptical disdain that's your business. I don't think calling God a 'quack' or likening Him to an Internet scam is gonna have the desired effect.

The "desired effect"? Is that how you think reality is to be determined, believing what you desire to be true? Is that how one chooses which of the thousands of gods offered is the "real god", by choosing to believe in the one that offers what one wishes to be so?

 

[Lion IRC]

Um...Atheos was the one demanding a desired effect
...or else!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um...Atheos was the one demanding a desired effect
...or else!

Ah.
See, i was confused because you were replying to me. And i don't think Atheos mentioned quacks...

So, anyway, what's wrong with skeptical approaches to questions?