• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why do Christian zealots insist on lying?

GenesisNemesis

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
3,867
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.
 
I didn't know the Darwin fable was still current. I found the fable about the Christian girl who died at Columbine rather than deny her faith to be pathetic and distasteful. And, honestly, the conservative Christers have joined hands around the Orange One. How strong do you think their connection to honesty, consistency, and integrity can be?
 
Smith Wigglesworth supposed brought a man back from the dead at a funeral home. No one has said which home and no one said who it was and who the scared silly witnesses were.

The book of Mormon has stories in it where there are supposed witnesses to special events that supposedly took place yet the mainstream Christians do not acceptvthose testimonies. Maybe because they know eyewitnesses can be nade up and what the fake witnesses saw be made up as well. They had courts requiring witnesses going back to the beginning of history. It isn't too hard to imagine some con artist having been in a trial with witnesses come up with the idea to fake witnesses and fake events to support some religion he started or wanted to do betterm
 
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.

?

Last I heard, Darwin was fairly reticent to speak or write on religious matters, but he was certainly a uncomplicated Christian early in life, and seems to have drifted toward agnosticism over time. His letters to Asa Gray suggest a fairly nuanced positioning with respect to faith. He was a deep thinker by preference, quiet by nature, and not given to pointless argumentation or "sound bite" policy positions. But I don't see that it is unreasonable to call such a person a Christian, for whatever it might matter. He was baptized, he never renounced his faith. One doesn't have to be a zealot to be a part of the Christian community.
 
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.

?

Last I heard, Darwin was fairly reticent to speak or write on religious matters, but he was certainly a uncomplicated Christian early in life, and seems to have drifted toward agnosticism over time. His letters to Asa Gray suggest a fairly nuanced positioning with respect to faith. He was a deep thinker by preference, quiet by nature, and not given to pointless argumentation or "sound bite" policy positions. But I don't see that it is unreasonable to call such a person a Christian, for whatever it might matter. He was baptized, he never renounced his faith. One doesn't have to be a zealot to be a part of the Christian community.

He did renounce his faith.

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."[41]

To the Christian zealot, this is practically a renunciation of faith. There's also evidence Darwin was sympathetic to Unitarianism, which makes things far more complicated than "Darwin was a Christian".
 
Oh yeah. Even more specific:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God",

In a letter from Darwin to McDermott, F.A.
 
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.

?

Last I heard, Darwin was fairly reticent to speak or write on religious matters, but he was certainly a uncomplicated Christian early in life, and seems to have drifted toward agnosticism over time. His letters to Asa Gray suggest a fairly nuanced positioning with respect to faith. He was a deep thinker by preference, quiet by nature, and not given to pointless argumentation or "sound bite" policy positions. But I don't see that it is unreasonable to call such a person a Christian, for whatever it might matter. He was baptized, he never renounced his faith. One doesn't have to be a zealot to be a part of the Christian community.
Yes, Darwin was brought up as a Christian in childhood. Observation of the natural world and reasoning in his adulthood convinced him that Christianity's beliefs and teachings were wrong. So while the claim by modern day Christians is technically correct (Darwin was Christian as a child) the claim is quite disingenuous.
 
To the Christian zealot, this is practically a renunciation of faith.

Special pleading.

You forgot this quote:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God",

If someone can still be a Christian and not believe the Bible is divine revelation or that Jesus is the Son of God, then the word "Christian" is so vague as to be meaningless.
 
You forgot this quote:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God",

If someone can still be a Christian and not believe the Bible is divine revelation or that Jesus is the Son of God, then the word "Christian" is so vague as to be meaningless.

So Darwin's capacity for nuance is confusing to zealots of all stripes. This is not surprising. Why is so important for you all to claim him for your "side", though? Just because he is famous? He is dead, and his contributions to other fields stand on their own whether or not he believed in anything. That is the principle virtue of the sciences.
 
You forgot this quote:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God",

If someone can still be a Christian and not believe the Bible is divine revelation or that Jesus is the Son of God, then the word "Christian" is so vague as to be meaningless.

So Darwin's capacity for nuance is confusing to zealots of all stripes. This is not surprising. Why is so important for you all to claim him for your "side", though? Just because he is famous? He is dead, and his contributions to other fields stand on their own whether or not he believed in anything. That is the principle virtue of the sciences.

Is it your position that it's impossible for a Christian to renounce his faith?

I've been told many a time "Once a Christian, Always a Christian," no matter what I said about the matter.
 
I was raised as a Christians and I was actually Baptized twice, once as an infant when my parents were fairly irreligious and once at the age of 8, when I was a budding funny. I'm in trouble because I've never officially renounced my faith, although I've considered myself an atheist for the past 41 years.

But, I don't think Darwin is really the point of this thread. I think the point is that many times, a lot of Christians make up shit, lie or don't really know what they are talking about. So, why are you missing the point, Poli? I don't care what Darwin believed, but the evidence suggests that he left Christianity.

I've seen Christians state that the abolitionists and suffragettes movements were led by Christians when in fact, there were also many atheist women who were very involved in the leadership of both of those movements. I really don't care that much, but on the other hand, it's nice to know that women like me were successful activists in important historical movements. Maybe that's why people like to claim certain people in history shared similar beliefs to their own. It's best to at least know the facts before we claim anything.
 
You forgot this quote:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God",

If someone can still be a Christian and not believe the Bible is divine revelation or that Jesus is the Son of God, then the word "Christian" is so vague as to be meaningless.

So Darwin's capacity for nuance is confusing to zealots of all stripes.

More from Darwin's autobiography:

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories. . . .

Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Why is so important for you all to claim him for your "side", though?
It's not. The topic is about that impulse. It's very clear he was an atheist and some Christians want to claim him for their side.

He is dead, and his contributions to other fields stand on their own whether or not he believed in anything. That is the principle virtue of the sciences.
The topic is fact-checking a lie and finding what the truth is. That's the virtue of skepticism.
 
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.
While some undoubtedly are knowingly liars ("lying for Jesus" is actually encouraged by some), I think that most of the Christian apologists are just ignorant of the fact that they are badly mistaken or maybe it is wishful thinking on their part.

One that I have heard often is, "there are no atheists in foxholes". I can attest from personal experience that this is false.
 
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.

?

Last I heard, Darwin was fairly reticent to speak or write on religious matters, but he was certainly a uncomplicated Christian early in life, and seems to have drifted toward agnosticism over time. His letters to Asa Gray suggest a fairly nuanced positioning with respect to faith. He was a deep thinker by preference, quiet by nature, and not given to pointless argumentation or "sound bite" policy positions. But I don't see that it is unreasonable to call such a person a Christian, for whatever it might matter. He was baptized, he never renounced his faith. One doesn't have to be a zealot to be a part of the Christian community.

Darwin had considered the life of a country Pastor before he discovered his love for nature. His father wanted him to be a doctor but he did not have the stomach for it, and a career as a Pastor was acceptable to his father. Which is why he had thought about such a line of work, to keep his father happy. So I would agree that he was a Christian in his early life. I also remember reading that he began to question the Christian notion of god after he had spent the first half of his life traveling the world to study living things (and even fossils in South America, apparently), and formulating the theory of evolution. He was most definitely NOT a Christian at the time his daughter died, and his writings make it clear. He may have been agnostic or a nondenominational theist, but he was not a Christian.
 
Christians make these types of claims because the mindset that results in believing things that aren't true, by corollary, is also not conducive to making logical deductions without letting ego get in the way.

To a Christian believing in the miracle is more important than finding truth, even if they aren't aware this is the case. Actually changing and becoming faithful to reason is a step they need to figure out and take themselves.
 
Christians make these types of claims because the mindset that results in believing things that aren't true, by corollary, is also not conducive to making logical deductions without letting ego get in the way.

To a Christian believing in the miracle is more important than finding truth, even if they aren't aware this is the case. Actually changing and becoming faithful to reason is a step they need to figure out and take themselves.

Agreed. Psychologically I don't suppose there is much if any difference between telling a lie and believing a lie.
 
Christians make these types of claims because the mindset that results in believing things that aren't true, by corollary, is also not conducive to making logical deductions without letting ego get in the way.

To a Christian believing in the miracle is more important than finding truth, even if they aren't aware this is the case. Actually changing and becoming faithful to reason is a step they need to figure out and take themselves.

Agreed. Psychologically I don't suppose there is much if any difference between telling a lie and believing a lie.

When I was 21 I actually got first-hand experience with this. For a year I had a kind of mania induced belief in God, and I vividly remember how real it felt to me. I also remember how many people tried to talk me down, but none of them came even close to getting through.

It's not disingenuousness, it's a psychological barrier. A person has to be ready to accept truth before they will, and some people just don't ever get to that point.
 
For example: "Darwin was a Christian". Seriously, it's so easy to just fact check this lie and see what Darwin's views actually were. Why even bother? Is it because Christian zealots are liars? I guess that must be it.

?

Last I heard, Darwin was fairly reticent to speak or write on religious matters, but he was certainly a uncomplicated Christian early in life, and seems to have drifted toward agnosticism over time. His letters to Asa Gray suggest a fairly nuanced positioning with respect to faith. He was a deep thinker by preference, quiet by nature, and not given to pointless argumentation or "sound bite" policy positions. But I don't see that it is unreasonable to call such a person a Christian, for whatever it might matter. He was baptized, he never renounced his faith. One doesn't have to be a zealot to be a part of the Christian community.

His being baptized has no relevance to the meaning of "Christian" intended by those who claim he was one, or any psychological meaning, or that means anything beyond "some idiots threw water on him with his consent when he was an infant."

What matters for any valid definition of "Christian" is the person's actual beliefs regarding Jesus Christ. As Genesis' quotes show, Darwin believed that not only was Jesus Christ not the son of God and just a human man, but he rejected the Bible (the only source of information on Jesus) as factually false and rejected Jesus' views that the OT writings reflected factual and moral truths.

So, you want to disregard what a person believes about Jesus and his teaching as irrelevant to being a Christian, and claim that what matters is whether other people threw water at them and what label they were coerced into attaching to themselves prior to thinking about it for themselves.

By your definition of Christian, if I spit on you and believe that makes you a dragon, then you are a dragon.
 
Some years ago somebody put out a tract that claimed Thomas Paine, Charles Darwin, Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire) and IIRC Karl Marx all converted to funnymentalist Christianity on their deathbeds. It was all lies.

Eldarion Lathria
 
Back
Top Bottom