120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

WOW - glad you're so concerned about children

I take it by your response that you are saying that or judgments of God and his actions should be comparable to how we judge other humans. I would agree with you on that point. If you heard about a guy who, due to a political disagreement with another ruler, sent an assassin into that ruler's country and had him murder the first born children of all the people who work for that ruler and you were then told that this guy followed up that action by putting together a set of moral guidelines for people to live by, would you judge this guy to be the sort of person who was worthy to set moral guidelines? I personally would not and am curious if you would disagree with me on this point.

Especially if the first four of those "guidelines" were mere sops to the vanity and jealousy of the author of them.

 

[Learner]

If it were seen this way? Meaning intuition is equivalent to empiricism. But it's not...

Meaning ..if seen this way.. the empirical physic evidence is "not" the example against believers who also understand the same way of the physical world.

We have the same understanding between intuition and empiricism.

The significance or meaning of a cause is inside of us, it's one side of a relationship between ourselves and reality. To project a desire onto the physical world, and then insist that the firmer the belief in ancient revelation is equivalent to physics somehow means a person is spiritual is not rational.

Simlilar to the above.

Much better IMO is to leave issues of physical causes to physics, and appreciate that meaning comes from within. That's the basis for spirituality based in reality. Otherwise, a person is vulnerable to authority of revelation, which can be misused even at the community church level.

Theres is that , but at times the discussion is outside just the belief when finding interest as to how one sees "natural law" or "laws of physics" in discussion or how it is used in an argument.

 

[Lion IRC]

I take it by your response that you are saying that our judgments of God and his actions should be comparable to how we judge other humans. I would agree with you on that point.

Well that wasn't my main point but yes, I think we are expected to act (towards each other) in accordance with standards of truth and justice that God Himself also meets.
So there is no double-standard and any appearance of such would arise from our ignorance.

For example, if God commanded me to kill someone that would be morally different to me deciding to commit murder.

If you heard about a guy who, due to a political disagreement with another ruler...

God doesn't have political disagreements.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Well that wasn't my main point but yes, I think we are expected to act (towards each other) in accordance with standards of truth and justice that God Himself also meets.

So ... smite anybody who disobeys us, drown the world if we think people are getting too wicked, and dole out infinite punishment for finite crimes? Oh, and an occasional random gesture of mercy just to "balance" things out. Okay.

So there is no double-standard and any appearance of such would arise from our ignorance.

Or from your willingness to wave your hands and explain away any such "appearance" of double standards as due to the mysterious" nature of God.""his wats are not our ways", He works in mysterious ways", or some other such vacuous nonsense.

For example, if God commanded me to kill someone that would be morally different to me deciding to commit murder.

And how would you know it was really "God" commanding you, and not just your own desire telling you that's what it was, or schizophrenia convincing you? Many murders have been committed because people thought "God" told them to do it; I doubt the validity of their excuse as, I'm sure, any person in their right mind would. Do me a favour, please ... if "God" ever tells you to kill anybody, have a word with a mental health professional before you do anything else.

If you heard about a guy who, due to a political disagreement with another ruler...

God doesn't have political disagreements.

There, you're on pretty safe ground, in as far as non-existent beings can't agree or disagree with anything. God's "spokesmen", OTOH, have plenty of disagreements, political and otherwise. Again, I doubt the validity of their claims to speak for "God", but how does somebody who believes in "God" tell the difference? And please don't tell me it's because "God" wouldn't say this or that, because your claim to know what "God" would or wouldn't say is just as unfalsifiable as theirs would be.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Meaning ..if seen this way.. the empirical physic evidence is "not" the example against believers who also understand the same way of the physical world.

Not the example against believers? How so? There is no empirical evidence for god.

If you agree with the intuitive/empirical divide how can you possible argue that literalism is scientific. It's not.

Much better IMO is to leave issues of physical causes to physics, and appreciate that meaning comes from within. That's the basis for spirituality based in reality. Otherwise, a person is vulnerable to authority of revelation, which can be misused even at the community church level.

Theres is that , but at times the discussion is outside just the belief when finding interest as to how one sees "natural law" or "laws of physics" in discussion or how it is used in an argument.

You're not making sense. What is "finding interest"?

 

[Learner]

Not the example against believers? How so? There is no empirical evidence for god.

If you agree with the intuitive/empirical divide how can you possible argue that literalism is scientific. It's not.

I may have misunderstood again. I'm wondering how the example works in this regard. Knowledge of the physical universe is neutral to either side of the argument.

You're not making sense. What is "finding interest"?

Finding it interesting that people think laws of physics is an example against an existence of a creator. (we're going in circles)

 

[Horatio Parker]

I may have misunderstood again. I'm wondering how the example works in this regard. Knowledge of the physical universe is neutral to either side of the argument.

You're not making sense. What is "finding interest"?

Finding it interesting that people think laws of physics is an example against an existence of a creator. (we're going in circles)

Im not arguing against a creator. I'm arguing against an empirical creator. Assuming an empirical creator assumes a relationship with the observable laws of physics. Yet nowhere in science is there anything suggesting such a creator exists.

If the creator is in the mind OTOH there is no conflict, no need for distracting and useless apologetics.

 

[DBT]

If the World happens to be a creation the most likely candidate for agency of creation would be a high tech civilization running any number of simulated Worlds for purposes of their own, rather than some Supernatural, unknowable 'God' - whatever that's supposed to be or represent.

 

[Lion IRC]

DBT's post - interesting.
Truth is often stranger than fiction.

 

[DBT]

DBT's post - interesting.
Truth is often stranger than fiction.

It's an interesting idea, but we don't know whether it is true or not. It's not something you believe because it may be appealing, like some folks shop around for a religion and a god.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If you were God, what condition would you impose onto humans for them to be saved?

Yes. A loving mother will snatch her toddler out of a busy street, despite that being a violation of the child's free will.

Yet God can't be bothered to do the same?

He has done something similar, intervening in history 2000 years ago, i.e., sending Christ.

But you can't say "the same" -- it's a bad analogy. I.e., God rescuing humans is a much different kind of saving act than that of a human rescuing another human.

Your analogy has to be of a human rescuing something much inferior in nature to herself/himself.

And it may be that our ancestors 10 million years ago were not worth saving. At some point in evolution we crossed a threshold of some kind, after which point we became worth saving. So this might indicate some kind of necessary condition we must meet before God would be "bothered" to rescue us, or consider us worth saving.

I.e., maybe saving us is not just something automatic, unconditional, like the mother snatching her baby to safety.

 

[none]

I guess we're back to basics, zombies

 

[DBT]

If you were God, what condition would you impose onto humans for them to be saved?

Certainly not faith....to hide oneself away as a God so as not to be detected but expect your creatures to believe in your existence regardless or be thrown into the lake of fire is, well, quite lame.

 

[Barbarian]

If you were God, what condition would you impose onto humans for them to be saved?

See, this "something for something" mentality does not apply to an abrahamic god. We humans do it because we try to preserve the sum total of our resources, so we make exchange deals. But god could save everyone for free, no strings attached. Anyway, what could we have worth giving to an abrahamic god? Is "saving" a scarce resource? Does this god need something in exchange for it, if he was to give it away?

Also saving really means saving us from himself, for all the rules are his making in your mythology (by default, since there's no conceivable source of any limitations or preconditions whose postulating isn't also a blasphemy).

 

[DBT]

Isn't Love supposed to be unconditional?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

If you were God, what condition would you impose onto humans for them to be saved?

Saved from what? Hell? Hell, if I were god, I don't think I'd be threatening them with that in the first place.

 

[Atheos]

Let's say I'm God (whatever that means.) Let's say that for an eternity I was all alone, the only thing that existed. But I decided I needed someone else. Someone to talk to perhaps. Up till now I had all this power, unlimited power to do anything I wanted to do and thus far I have never done anything. Because no matter how far back you go to speak of my first act there would still be an eternity preceding it during which I was completely idle. So I'm going to create another person.

The only person that has existed to this point is me. This person requires no external source of energy. This person has never had to learn anything but knows everything there is to know. This person has never had occasion to communicate with another person yet somehow has language capability and can use it to say shit like, "Let there be light." And when this person speaks these words light just magically appears out of nowhere. This is in spite of the fact that prior to this there was no such thing as light so why the fuck would there be a word for it?

This person can separate light from darkness and call the light "day" and the darkness "night." And even though there is not yet a rotating planet or a sun to provide light for it, somehow evenings and mornings just happen.

But I'm getting ahead of myself, which is easy to do when you know the past, present and future with equal clarity.

So I'm going to create a person. Am I going to use myself as a model or would that be too risky? Can I trust myself not to kill myself and take over once I've created a person who is my equal? Hmmmm.... better not risk it. Hell, why am I having this conversation in the first place? I know the past, present and future with equal clarity and already know what kind of person I'm going to create. In fact I can't help but create exactly the person I know I'm going to create because if I were to change my mind about it I'd already know beforehand that I was going to change my mind and we'd be stuck with another paradox.

So as the French will eventually say, Que sera sera.

Humanity doesn't need saving. Yahweh does. If it existed I'd feel sorry for it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Humanity doesn't need saving. Yahweh does. If it existed I'd feel sorry for it.

That is a fabulous piece of writing. Thank-you for that!

 

[James Brown]

Yes. A loving mother will snatch her toddler out of a busy street, despite that being a violation of the child's free will.

Yet God can't be bothered to do the same?

He has done something similar, intervening in history 2000 years ago, i.e., sending Christ.

I fail to see how a person living 2000 years ago has direct relevance to me today. If God truly loved me, he would save me from whatever it is I need to be saved from, even if I didn't want to be saved, and not by hoping that some 2,000-year-old Argument-By-Proxy would inspire me.

Your analogy has to be of a human rescuing something much inferior in nature to herself/himself.

Sheesh, all these rules. Fine.

A loving person will snatch her puppy out of a busy street, despite that being a violation of the puppy's free will. Yet God can't be bothered to do the same for us, despite telling everyone that he loves us more than he loves puppies.

I.e., maybe saving us is not just something automatic, unconditional, like the mother snatching her baby to safety.

Are you suggesting that when a mother runs to snatch her toddler out of a busy street, that its some sort of unconscious reflex?

Heck, as long as we're speculating on "Maybe's", maybe there is no God and the Bible is little more than fan fiction.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It makes sense that God would want FAITH from us. (not blind faith, but based on evidence)

If you were God, what condition would you impose onto humans for them to be saved?

Certainly not faith....to hide oneself away as a God so as not to be detected but expect your creatures to believe in your existence regardless or be thrown into the lake of fire is, well, quite lame.

It's not a sufficient answer to say only what the condition should NOT be.

You could reject the premise and say there's nothing from which to be saved, or that there should be nothing. But the earlier quote accepted the premise that there's something to be saved from:

Yes. A loving mother will snatch her toddler out of a busy street, despite that being a violation of the child's free will.

Yet God can't be bothered to do the same?

So it's accepted (hypothetically) that there is this God doing a saving act, but it's wrong for him to require a conscious or willful choice from the victims, but rather he should do the saving act automatically.

Given the hypothesis of God wanting to save humans, what's wrong about the requirement of some conscious choice by the humans?

Part of the hypothesis probably is that it's only humans who might be saved. So all other animals are not saved, or are not facing the same threat to be saved from.

Given that premise, why isn't it appropriate that the humans are required to make a choice, such as animals cannot do? Why is that "faith" act not an appropriate requirement or condition for the victims to meet? It's very easy to meet it.

. . . to hide oneself away as a God so as not to be detected but expect your creatures to believe in your existence . . .

But he IS detected, if the miracles of Jesus really did happen. You don't believe they really happened. But just in case you're mistaken about that, and they really did happen, then he has presented himself in a way to be detected by us.

And the condition that we believe is about as simple as any condition could be, but not possible for non-humans, so why wouldn't that be an appropriate condition, rather than God performing the saving act automatically with no condition being required?