120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I wish every doubting skeptic here could feel what Saul/Paul did - the peace that surpasses all understanding.
It really does set you free.

Thanks, but I'll take understanding every time over your phony peace.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wish every doubting skeptic here could feel what Saul/Paul did - the peace that surpasses all understanding.
It really does set you free.

Thanks, but I'll take understanding every time over your phony peace.

True dat.

 

[funinspace]

Have you ever heard of a wish sandwich?

I wish every doubting skeptic here could feel what Saul/Paul did - the peace that surpasses all understanding.
It really does set you free.

Many here have thought they had hold of that warm fuzzy and cuddly teddy bear when they believed in your God. There are even a few former preachers that hang out here. I grew up mainstream Protestant, and shifted to independent evangelical style Bible churches for a dozen or so years towards the end of college. Did the whole thing, dunked, Bible study groups, prayed, helped with lots of things at the churches, did a little evangelizing, et.al. Alas, I was tested beyond what I could endure and passed a way to the freedom from faith. I'll say it was a rough 3 or so years during the process of loosing my faith. But afterwards, it has been good, and much like before w/o the pretend social club. I'm at peace...

And hey, for those that cling to OSAS theology, I guess I should still get that E-ticket to heaven.

 

[none]

ok, so has Lion IRC admitted to being unreasonable yet?

 

[abaddon]

ok, so has Lion IRC admitted to being unreasonable yet?

Admitting it isn't required, just watching him display an ugly nonchalance about whether what he says is true or not is enough.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I wish every doubting skeptic here could feel what Saul/Paul did - the peace that surpasses all understanding.
It really does set you free.

I thought you said you don't have a problem with skepticism. I guess you really only have a problem with skepticism if it leads to people disagreeing with you.

 

[James Brown]

I wish every Christian could feel what I felt when I deconverted.

The loss of that nagging background guilt that I'm not living up to someone else's standards.

The bracing grip that my life is my own responsibility, and that I won't be rewarded for blindly subscribing to another's ethical demands.

The breath-taking realization that this world is the only one that I'll experience--it's not a trial-run for the next world--so I better make the best of this one...

The sobering notion that people are wondrously complex, with amazing variety, and can't be neatly divided into the Chosen and the Damned...

The heart-swelling idea that I can see farther standing on my feet than bowed on my knees...

There's real freedom for you.

 

[Atheos]

I wish every theist burdened with the shackles of a mind trapped in constant brainwashing and group-think could just once experience the liberty of thinking for themselves. It's certainly an experience better felt than told. Oh well...

Ninja Edit: Cross-posted with James Brown who said it much better than I.

 

[Keith&Co.]

ok, so has Lion IRC admitted to being unreasonable yet?

Admitting it isn't required, just watching him display an ugly nonchalance about whether what he says is true or not is enough.

It is kind of amazing how many apologists bring the light of the Lord to the dark places but claim they don't really care if they're believed or not... I wonder if it's in a handbook or something?

 

[abaddon]

Admitting it isn't required, just watching him display an ugly nonchalance about whether what he says is true or not is enough.

It is kind of amazing how many apologists bring the light of the Lord to the dark places but claim they don't really care if they're believed or not... I wonder if it's in a handbook or something?

When badly timed (like in the middle of things heating up some), offering “the Good News” that contains the subtext “you people don’t have peace” just doesn’t come across all that friendly. But it fits perfectly the assert/evade strategy prescribed in The Will-to-Believe Handbook.

That the contradictions are shared by pretty much all evangelizing theists is amazing. Want to discuss but not learn. Want to save souls but don’t care. The truth matters until it’s inconvenient. Want to be free of burdens but lug a boatload of silly beliefs.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It can be proved that some things in life are better than others. "Good" and "better" are factual and verifiable in some cases.

The way dogs respond to humans clearly shows that they have high regard for what the humans want. And in some cases they risk their lives, even sacrifice themselves, serving humans.

This doesn't mean they're thinking the thought "Humans are superior to other animals," but they have some intuition or instinct that the humans are special and should be served or protected in ways that don't apply to other animals.

Maybe that is because they hold special value to humans, and think humans should be a protected species because they can benefit themselves and other organisms as well.

This is partly what the "superiority" of humans means. Dogs (or some of them) have an instinct which recognizes human superiority. I.e., it's part of their consciousness. So it's not just something humans imagine in the same sense that termites might imagine that termites are superior or that rattlesnakes might imagine that rattlesnakes are superior. Probably humans are the only animals which are recognized as superior by another kind than their own.

But this recognition of humans as superior is probably beyond just recognizing humans as something beneficial or useful to others, like to dogs.

The end result, regardless, is the organism doing what they want for themselves and what they think will maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain in some way.

Partly, but it's more than that. In some cases dogs sacrifice themselves, even their lives, to benefit humans.

A female dog allows humans to take away her puppies, maybe to sell them, without making a fuss, but gets angry at another dog approaching her puppies, and might fight that other dog to drive it away. She trusts the humans to do whatever is better, but not another dog.

Their trust toward the humans is more than just a desire to get some benefit from the humans.

That is the goal, and then how to go about achieving it is what marks the strategy to it.

But getting some obvious survival goal/benefit from humans does not explain all the examples we can see of dogs recognizing human superiority.

Laws protecting livestock animals are done for the welfare of those animals and can cause a higher cost which consumers have to pay. Obviously the motive for these laws is not human benefit, but the welfare of the animals. Much animal protection activity has nothing to do with human pleasure, but just with doing what we feel an obligation to do for their benefit.

You have quite a massive misreading of what is happening there though. We take pleasure in fulfilling some (but not all) obligations that we hold, and so to do that will sometimes include taking measures (and making laws) to protect other animals, even if a cost to do so is something like a higher level of pay, as you say. We still consider it a worthwhile price to pay for the benefit it can also bring us, namely pleasure in helping out other animals.

No, we do make some choices based on what we think is good, or the right thing to do, regardless of any pleasure we gain from it. Unless you're equating what is "good" with what makes us feel good, as a definition of "good" or "right."

But this cannot be how "good" or "right" is defined. We know we must sometimes sacrifice what feels good in favor of what is right or good. This is a common experience for most people, choosing reluctantly to submit to the "higher" good which overrides their own personal pleasure. It's not true that they gain any kind of "pleasure" from sacrificing this pleasure (even if you claim this is always true for you, i.e., that you always take "pleasure" in sacrificing your own interest for the "greater" good).

In many cases people forfeit some pleasure, i.e., NET pleasure for themselves, out of necessity to do what is for the "greater" good, which results in a NET LOSS of pleasure for themselves. But they do it because it's right or good, regardless of their personal loss. It is false to say that somehow they gain some "deeper" pleasure which is the REAL pleasure, or the ULTIMATE pleasure in some mystical sense. That is psycho-babble. They chose LESS pleasure for themselves because they submitted to what is right or good or for a "higher" good than their pleasure.

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

Note that it is you who is saying that, and putting those words into the mouth of the universe (so-to-speak). The universe has never uttered those words though, you are just interpreting the actions in it that way.

Again, these words are in quotes, meaning they're not to be taken literally. This was your phrase originally, not mine. I adopted it from you and assumed your meaning overlapped with my understanding.

Can you provide a link to the post where I stated that? I suspect there is another misreading and misunderstanding here, and I just want to clarify such. Thank you.

I always put those words in quotes when I used them.

Here is the original post where you introduced the phrase "more valuable to the universe" (in bold):

When you say the dog is superior to a lizard and a centipede, are you saying that just *IN GENERAL* dogs are superior but there may be some exceptions with specific individuals, . . .

Yes, it's ONLY INDIVIDUALS that are superior or inferior. So 99% of dogs are superior to 99% of insects.

. . . or are you making an all-encompassing and universal statement that ALL dogs are superior to ALL lizards and centipedes?

No, there are the tiny few exceptions. A dying dog in a coma is probably inferior to a healthy lizard.

How can you tell which of those statements, which of those interpretations, is true whenever you just say dogs are superior to lizards and centipedes?

Add the "in general" to make it precise.

We can come up with objective characteristics that different organisms have and others do not, but ultimately if we are going to say that we humans VALUE one organism over another and then give an objective criterion to account for their difference, we need to realize that it is eventually a subjective preference why we will place any value on the difference.

No, it's not subjective. Some animals, especially the more intelligent, actually know that humans are superior to them. It's not just that we're humans that we think humans are superior.

Some dolphins and whales know that humans are superior. There are certain behaviors from some animals which show that they have an awareness of human superiority, especially the higher more intelligent animals.

If we say we value animals with whole body fur over animals without such, then ultimately it will be apparent that it is just our own preference to do so for our own benefit, . . .

But in that case it's just the higher human value, and thus the human pleasure, which takes priority.

. . . neither animal would objectively be more valuable to the universe itself than the other.

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

If we value humans with red hair more than humans with blonde hair, or vice versa, it is not because either one is inherently more valuable to the universe. It is just our own preference, and whatever gives us more satisfaction.

But we also know that higher intelligence or higher thinking activity has greater value than this or that hair color. The human aesthetic satisfaction has a certain value, and the thinking-judging-believing activity is on a higher level of value.

Intelligence does have greater value than hair color. We do not have any choice to deny this fact. Virtually everyone recognizes this fact of life.

To deny this, you have to give an example of someone not recognizing it and putting more value on hair color than on intelligence. Is it possible to give such an example?

The misunderstanding you have rests on the mixup of the concepts of "intersubjective" and "objective." When some individual holds some specific value, feeling, emotion, etc. then we say that it is a "subjective" quality. When multiple people hold that same subjective value though, it is a misunderstanding to think of it as "objective." It is actually more appropriately referred to as "intersubjective." When some characteristic is "objective," that applies when it is true regardless of what any people (or other organisms) perceives it as. So if some individual likes the singer Bruce Springsteen more than any other artist, that would be subjective to that person. If multiple people think Springsteen was the best artist, that would be intersubjective to those people.

But it becomes "objective" if they think Springsteen is the best artist FOR EVERYONE, and not just for themselves. If those people insist that this music is THE best FOR EVERYONE, which EVERYONE must like and agree is the best, and that there is something wrong with anyone who doesn't agree, then this claim (that Springsteen is the best) becomes an OBJECTIVE belief of theirs, and is either true or false for everyone, i.e., objectively true or false.

(And this would be objectively false, because Scott Joplin's ragtime music is superior to Springsteen.)

It would only really be "objective" if it was a fact of the universe that Bruce Springsteen was the best music artist.

But no one ever claimed that. Not the most ardent Springsteen fan (except when they had smoked one too many joints, which doesn't count). When they were sober and of clear mind, they said only that Springsteen was the best FOR THEM, but not necessarily for everyone.

But . . . BUT . . .

When you say Adolf Hitler was a bad guy for having murdered all those innocent people, you're not leaving open the option of someone disagreeing with you. If someone disagrees with you, you condemn that person as evil and needing to be corrected.

But that's NOT what the Springsteen fan is saying when he insists that Springsteen is the best music. He is not insisting that everyone must agree and is not condemning anyone who prefers the Platters or Kate Smith singing "God Bless America." But you do condemn anyone who says Adolf Hitler was a superior human to Albert Schweitzer.

Since that is not the case (and cannot be either), it is inappropriate to declare Springsteen as being "objectively good" in this same way.

It's not absolutely certain that this or that artist cannot possibly be the best for everyone. However, the fact is that virtually no one insists that Springsteen's music is the best for everyone. And no one has yet proved that this or that particular music is the absolute best for everyone or has shown how such a thing could be proved.

But that doesn't change the fact that some things can be proved, including that some things are better than other things. E.g., pleasure is superior to pain. Etc.

AND, it can be proved that some "music" is really only noise, and some "art" is incoherent and fraudulent. This can be proved in some cases. Some of the "values" are based on scientific or "objective" fact and not just on something subjective. The "value" facts are more complicated and more difficult to define and analyze and verify, but this does not make them subjective or less true or of a lower status than 2 + 2 = 4. They are just more difficult to explain or prove or verify or analyze or define.

That phrase is just a self-contradiction and makes no sense, same as saying that intelligence or hair color has more value than the other, as a fact of the universe.

No, saying intelligence has more importance than hair color, or is superior to hair color, is objectively true, for everyone, and does make sense and is not a contradiction. Whereas saying Springsteen is the best music for everyone is not objectively true for everyone, and everyone knows this, including the Springsteen fans (when they're in their right mind).

No, it is a declaration of value by people, . . .

It's also a fact of the universe. Or a fact which none of us established by choosing it arbitrarily as one might choose chocolate over vanilla, or as one might choose Springsteen over Elvis Presley. When you declare that Hitler was wrong, this is a fact of the universe you are stating, not just your subjective feeling with which someone might disagree without being condemned by you.

. . . not a declaration of or statement by the universe itself.

Perhaps a fact of the universe can stand on its own without being "declared" by someone or by the universe. It's not necessarily established what is the nature of these facts, or what put them in place, but they are real and we recognize them, even if we cannot explain where they came from or how they are established.

If not, then you must answer why you would condemn someone who disagrees with you about Hitler, and other examples where you would not tolerate someone thinking differently than you do. There are such "values" you hold, where you would condemn someone who makes a different choice than you.

You would even condemn someone who says hair color is more important than intelligence. Suppose someone says they prefer a particular candidate for political office because he has the right hair color. You would condemn them for that (if they were serious). You would not just say their opinion is just as good as yours and that there's no "objective" reason to choose intelligence as a higher value than hair color. You would condemn them as a fool for preferring hair color.

The universe, or any deity inside or outside of the universe, has not declared intelligence or hair color either as being more valuable.

Nor has the universe "declared" that the sun is farther away from us than the moon. So then, it's our choice that the sun is farther from us than the moon? We made that so by deciding it, or choosing it?

No, but whether the sun or moon is farther away from us is a physical statement about nature. It is an objective fact.

That intelligence is more important than hair color is also an objective fact.

The only difference is that it is more difficult to measure and explain and analyze. And of course you can give examples where you need a certain hair color for a particular purpose, and so it ends up being more complicated explaining the "importance" of intelligence over hair color. But it can be explained. It's still a fact, even though it's difficult to explain. It's incorrect to dismiss it as a non-fact just because it's difficult to explain.

When we humans say that "brunette is nicer than blonde" or vice versa, or "hair color is more valuable than intelligence" or vice versa, it is moreso a statement of our own preferences and tastes, not a physical statement about a fact of the universe itself that would be true regardless of what any organisms said about it.

But when we say intelligence is more important than hair color as a trait that makes one species superior to another, it is a physical fact of the universe we are stating, not just a subjective feeling. It is a major factor which makes humans superior to other animals, and which makes a dolphin superior to a mouse, even though the mouse has prettier hair.

Saying "brunette is nicer than blonde" cannot be compared to "intelligence is more important than hair color" as statements of fact. One is fact, the other is personal preference based on feelings. And you know the difference, even if you pretend you don't know the difference.

Some things are just true, some things are just false, fullstop.

"Intelligence is more important than hair color" is true. Anyone who denies this is wrong. You don't deny it, and you don't know anyone who denies it. You can't quote anyone who denies it.

They are not matters of our own preferences.

The greater importance of intelligence is not a matter of personal preference. It is objectively wrong for someone to think hair color is more important. It can be proved that they are wrong.

 

[Atheos]

"Intelligence is more important than hair color" is true. Anyone who denies this is wrong. You don't deny it, and you don't know anyone who denies it. You can't quote anyone who denies it.

I deny it.

The smartest polar bear in the world would starve to death if his hair was black.

Intelligence is more important to me than hair color, and arguably more important to most, if not all humans. But it is not a universal truth that intelligence is more important than hair color. It is an opinion shared by human beings who happen to have taken an evolutionary strategy that depended on intelligence. Imagine that! A species that depends on intelligence to survive values intelligence above hair color. Who would have thunk it?

Even if every human on the planet agrees that one thing is more valuable than another thing that opinion is not a universal truth. It is still merely an opinion.

Cheetahs have several assets, including their hair coloring and speed. They are nowhere near as intelligent as human beings but their speed and hair coloring are much more critical to their survival than their ability to parse a sentence.

Somewhere relatively near the area where "sun" is designated is a tiny bluish speck. On a portion of the surface of that speck is a species of life that considers intelligence more important than hair color. Some other species of life on that speck depend more on hair color than intelligence for their survival.

Step back a bit and that galaxy quickly gets lost in the billions upon billions of galaxies that make up the universe.

2 + 2 = 4 everywhere in both of those images. Intelligence > Hair Color is an opinion shared by one species that you'd be hard pressed to locate somewhere in one of those images.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Perhaps a fact of the universe can stand on its own without being "declared" by someone or by the universe. It's not necessarily established what is the nature of these facts, or what put them in place, but they are real and we recognize them, even if we cannot explain where they came from or how they are established.

Massive fail.
I mean, that's exactly what we have been asking, for you to establish that these are objective standards of the universe AND explain how you know they are, in some way that stands up to scrutiny.
You just assert that they are, they are, they really are, and we're to just take your word for it because you also assert that we agree with the standards.

Even though we don't...

 

[Lion IRC]

ok, so has Lion IRC admitted to being unreasonable yet?

Admitting it isn't required, just watching him display an ugly nonchalance about whether what he says is true or not is enough.

My nonchalance is not indifference as to whether or not something I say is true.
It's indifference as to whether or not you believe me.

And frankly, if we want to talk about dishonesty, let's look at people who demand citations yet have no intention of changing their position even if it is proven to them that Hitchens DID say he would like to be surprised to discover there was an afterlife. I said 60 Minutes. It WAS 60 Minutes. I said Hitchens used the words "I like surprises". And that IS the form of words he used. So who exactly is being dishonest in accusing me of having a nonchalant attitude to truth?

I stated my OPiNiON about the implications of Hitchens statment and people go into a rant about Forum Rules requiring me to cite proof that my OPINION is true^TM

And when others verify for themselves that Hitchens did say that on 60 Minutes, just as I predicted, the response is a range of competing opinions about what Hitchens was really intending by those words and how the 'smile' PROVES my opinion wrong. So forgive me for my "ugly nonchalance" when it comes to dropping everything and rushing off to collect citations on demand for people can do so themselves if they believe I'm making up stuff.

...oh but Lion IRC, it's YOUR claim, you have the persuasive burden of proof

Nope. If I say I think something is true, I am no more or less burdened than the person who thinks the opposite.

And in this case, the 'opposite' would consist of a person claiming that Hitchens never did a 60 Minutes interview about the afterlife in which he said he liked surprises. "Citation or it never happened" is a positive claim that Hitchens NEVER said it. But he did says it irrespective of whether I provide a citation or not.

 

[none]

i reject your reality and provide my own, thank you

 

[Keith&Co.]

I stated my OPiNiON about the implications of Hitchens statment and people go into a rant about Forum Rules requiring me to cite proof that my OPINION is trueTM

A rant?
How droll.

No one demanded that you cite your OPINION. We asked for the citation to the quote you drew your opinion from.

Maybe that distinction is beyond you? Terribly sorry about that.

 

[Lion IRC]

No one demanded that you cite your OPINION....

Why would someone ask me to cite MY opinion?

 

[Keith&Co.]

No one demanded that you cite your OPINION....

Why would someone ask me to cite MY opinion?

Yes, that is the salient detail of my post. Quite appropriate to concentrate your ire there.

 

[Juma]

Admitting it isn't required, just watching him display an ugly nonchalance about whether what he says is true or not is enough.

My nonchalance is not indifference as to whether or not something I say is true.
It's indifference as to whether or not you believe me.

And frankly, if we want to talk about dishonesty, let's look at people who demand citations yet have no intention of changing their position even if it is proven to them that Hitchens DID say he would like to be surprised to discover there was an afterlife. I said 60 Minutes. It WAS 60 Minutes. I said Hitchens used the words "I like surprises". And that IS the form of words he used. So who exactly is being dishonest in accusing me of having a nonchalant attitude to truth?

I stated my OPiNiON about the implications of Hitchens statment and people go into a rant about Forum Rules requiring me to cite proof that my OPINION is true^TM

And when others verify for themselves that Hitchens did say that on 60 Minutes, just as I predicted, the response is a range of competing opinions about what Hitchens was really intending by those words and how the 'smile' PROVES my opinion wrong. So forgive me for my "ugly nonchalance" when it comes to dropping everything and rushing off to collect citations on demand for people can do so themselves if they believe I'm making up stuff.

...oh but Lion IRC, it's YOUR claim, you have the persuasive burden of proof

Nope. If I say I think something is true, I am no more or less burdened than the person who thinks the opposite.

And in this case, the 'opposite' would consist of a person claiming that Hitchens never did a 60 Minutes interview about the afterlife in which he said he liked surprises. "Citation or it never happened" is a positive claim that Hitchens NEVER said it. But he did says it irrespective of whether I provide a citation or not.

Yes. Some things you said was right but some was wrong. first: you got the question wrong, it was not specificially about afterlife.

Second: you are mistaken on the interpretation say since you ignore his obvious bodylanguage.

Third:you show no gratityde at all to those who did your job and dug out the video. How christian of you.

 

[Lion IRC]

I didn't say it was "soecifically" about the afterlife.

I find it funny to see atheists quibbling about the fine distinction between supernatural beings and the realm in which they dwell. Tell you what, how about you explain to me how Hitchens' atheism would remain intact if he found his post-mortem self in a place where he was duly "surprised".