Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on March 10, 2014, 03:48:39 pm

Title: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: jr2 on March 10, 2014, 03:48:39 pm
Came across this from my brother's newsfeed, thought it rather interesting (well, specifically, the one about Religion being the #1 cause of war).

Discussions, please, but keep it civil.  I'm sure we can all agree to disagree and no one is going to change their mind here (probably), but at least there's plenty to discuss (and tons of comments on the original link, check that out as well if you want) :


Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet) (http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/devastating-arguments-against-christianity-courtesy-of-the-internet/)

Posted on October 1, 2013


I’m writing this post primarily for my own convenience. During my online journeys to r/atheism (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/), “freethought” blogs, and beyond, I encounter the following arguments so frequently that it seems sensible to fact-check them all at once.

_____

The Claim: “Religion has been the primary cause of war and oppression throughout the history of mankind.”

(http://wellspentjourney.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/religion-causes-war.jpg?w=584&h=376)

The Truth: In their comprehensive Encyclopedia of Wars (http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars-Volume-Library-History/dp/0816028516), Phillips and Axelrod document the recorded history of warfare. Of the 1,763 wars presented, a mere 7% involved a religious cause. When Islam is subtracted from the equation, that number drops to 3.2%.

In terms of casualties, religious wars account for only 2% of all people killed by warfare. This pales in comparison to the number of people who have been killed by secular dictators in the 20th century alone.

_____

The Claim: “Thanks to modern science, the days of religion are numbered. Humanity’s superstitious belief in miracles and sky gods will soon be replaced by an era of atheism and rationalism.”

(http://wellspentjourney.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/mocn3zr.jpg?w=584)

The Truth: Modern atheists typically appeal to science™ as the authoritative source of human knowledge, meaning, and morality. So it’s ironic that this particular claim directly contradicts current scientific projections.

The following are expected net gains/losses in religious adherents, worldwide, from 2010-2050:

Christianity: +1,066,944,000 (net gain)
Islam: +1,001,101,000 (net gain)
Hinduism: +316,288,000 (net gain)
Agnosticism: -1,995,000 (net loss)
Buddhism: +61,405,000 (net gain)
Atheism: -4,039,000 (net loss)

(source: World Religion Database (http://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/wrd_default.asp))

_____

The Claim: “The dark ages were a time of ignorance and superstition, thanks to religion’s negative influence on scientific progress.”

(http://wellspentjourney.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/darkages.gif?w=584)

The Truth: Atheist writer Tim O’Neill responds to this claim eloquently in his excellent review of “God’s Philosophers” (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/): 

Quote
It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists – like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa – and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.

_____

The Claim: “Jesus was a mythical figure. The New Testament stole most of its stories from other ancient sources.”

(http://wellspentjourney.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/loldaddy-com-1339110548.jpg?w=584&h=1313)

The Truth: These claims gained a lot of popularity thanks to the 2007 propaganda film “Zeitgeist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie)” and its articulation of the Jesus myth hypothesis.

It turns out that the “facts” presented in the image above are almost entirely fabricated. I was able to refute most of them in about thirty minutes of searching on academic websites:

Horus


Mithra


Krishna


Dionysus


(Note: if any of the above is incomplete or inaccurate, please let me know.)

(Also: you can follow Well Spent Journey on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/WellSpentJourneyBlog) for daily articles, links, quotes, etc.)
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: The E on March 10, 2014, 03:52:03 pm
I have to ask: What's the point of posting this here? Neither the rabid religious nor the rabid anti-religious crowd are heavily represented here; Most of us on the atheist side of the debate already know better reasons for why we are atheists than those refuted here.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: jr2 on March 10, 2014, 04:06:25 pm
I'm pretty sure I've seen the equivalent of "if we could just get everyone to stop believing in religion, we could all live in peace" bandied around.  And, well, if no one finds it applicable, the thread just dies.  :doubt:  So as long as no one uses it as an excuse for flaming (and I did put a cautionary mention for those that might want to in the OP), it will either be interesting discussion material, or, it will fall through the cracks into the HLP dustbin.  I don't mind either way.  :D
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 10, 2014, 04:23:23 pm
I think the lesson here is that people who are inclined to agree with simplistic interpretations/arguments on the Internet are notoriously bad at checking their facts, despite the fact that they are falling for those simplistic interpretations/arguments on the Internet, which is literally the most exhaustive collection of information ever assembled by humanity.

The irony is not lost.

Though it's worth pointing out that:
1.  The sophisticated argument is that organized religion is responsible for a large number of deaths and a significant amount of oppression around the world, both historically and in the present day, despite its mandate to improve the human condition and produce spiritual enlightenment.
2.  Those net numbers don't factor relative comparators; proportionally, while human population is going up, religious adherence is going down (though anyone who thinks it will ever hit zero is foolish).
3.  The Dark Ages were only 'dark' in the Christian world, and it had more to do with politics, plagues, and territorial war than religion.  The Arabs made remarkable scientific advances, and the Dark Ages are really only 'dark' when compared to the eras that followed - the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.  Anyone who is attributing the "lack of scientific advancement" in the Dark Ages to Christianity fails at history.
4.  Those are bad examples of how Christianity adopted other religious teachings into its own, but it doesn't mean that Christianity didn't do that.  The dates of Jesus' birth, death, and a number of other Christian religious holidays and traditions stem from popular pagan beliefs that were adopted into Christianity to ease conversions.  Jesus has been historically documented to have been born some time in the summer months; December 25 is close to both the winter solstice and the ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia, which, much like Christmas, became something of a secular holiday even after the collapse of the Roman Empire.  The fact that someone on the Internet has botched Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Hindu mythology does not mean that the details and legends concerning Christ are unique or true (though it's pretty well documented that a person named Jesus, from Nazareth, existed around the period of 0 CE).  Jesus the man existed; Jesus as described in Biblical terms may well largely be a mythological figure.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Ghostavo on March 10, 2014, 04:42:24 pm
While MP-Ryan did a good job of pointing out the majority of the issues, there is one part that irks me.

The Truth: Modern atheists typically appeal to science™ as the authoritative source of human knowledge, meaning, and morality.

No atheist will deify science™. They may claim the scientific method is the best known way to accumulate knowledge regarding the universe, and that discussions of meaning (?) or morality are beyond the scope of it, apart from sociological considerations of such.

Atheists don't think science is god. This complaint of atheism is so prevalent among some theists that sometimes I wonder if they forget the meaning of the term atheist.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Goober5000 on March 10, 2014, 04:51:26 pm
I think the lesson here is that people who are inclined to agree with simplistic interpretations/arguments on the Internet are notoriously bad at checking their facts, despite the fact that they are falling for those simplistic interpretations/arguments on the Internet, which is literally the most exhaustive collection of information ever assembled by humanity.

The irony is not lost.
Indeed.  Though it can possibly be ascribed to the fact that, in times of plenty, people tend to get lazy.  This seems as true for information as it does for gathering food.

Quote
Though it's worth pointing out that:
1.  The sophisticated argument is that organized religion is responsible for a large number of deaths and a significant amount of oppression around the world, both historically and in the present day, despite its mandate to improve the human condition and produce spiritual enlightenment.
Well first, the oppression and deaths are usually more appropriately ascribed to other causes, as you yourself pointed out here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87034.msg1739826#msg1739826).  Second, religion really has improved the human condition and produced spiritual enlightenment in numerous, tangible ways.  In just one example, slavery has been practiced throughout human history and in every human culture; yet in the space of one human lifetime it was completely outlawed throughout the British Empire (and via political pressure, most of the rest of the world) by William Wilberforce and others following the convictions of their religion.

Quote
2.  Those net numbers don't factor relative comparators; proportionally, while human population is going up, religious adherence is going down (though anyone who thinks it will ever hit zero is foolish).
This varies from country to country and from continent to continent.  While religion may be on the decline in North America and Europe, it is very much alive and growing in Africa and China.

Quote
4.  Those are bad examples of how Christianity adopted other religious teachings into its own, but it doesn't mean that Christianity didn't do that.  The dates of Jesus' birth, death, and a number of other Christian religious holidays and traditions stem from popular pagan beliefs that were adopted into Christianity to ease conversions.  Jesus has been historically documented to have been born some time in the summer months; December 25 is close to both the winter solstice and the ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia, which, much like Christmas, became something of a secular holiday even after the collapse of the Roman Empire.  The fact that someone on the Internet has botched Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Hindu mythology does not mean that the details and legends concerning Christ are unique or true (though it's pretty well documented that a person named Jesus, from Nazareth, existed around the period of 0 CE).  Jesus the man existed; Jesus as described in Biblical terms may well largely be a mythological figure.
While not denying that Christianity has indeed adopted various pagan and secular traditions from time to time, I'll point out that there is copious historical and documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus as described in Biblical terms.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Luis Dias on March 10, 2014, 04:56:23 pm
Yes, well while I think this post is sufficiently polemic to stirr trouble in many parts of the internet it will probably go besides many heads here (like mine), who despite being atheists, are equally not very fond of these simplistic arguments as well... I think all the "counter-points" you raise are valid ones, and I would even disagree with Ghostavo here (and perhaps be a little bit polemic) in declaring that militant atheism does engage sometimes in worshipping the altar of Science as the Big Alternative to Religion, which is something that usually ends up in weird places like Scientism.

One thing that comes to mind and is mildly annoying to me is the Carl Sagan Wannabes that populate the blogosphere, the youtubosphere and whatever mainstream media is still visioned by humans (ahah telly), with propagandizing the "real wonders" of the world with Saganesque gasps and sighs at the minor things, repeating the same mantras on how beautiful and perfect the scientific method is and so on and so on, and how religious thought is just medieval stuff still hanging around pulling us back towards the dark ages, etc. OK, folks, we get it, you like Science. Can you please move the **** on?
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Dragon on March 10, 2014, 05:19:10 pm
The problem with that kind of people is that they just replace "God" with "science" and think they're progressive. True atheism, one that truly lets you shed any "higher force" superstitions requires deep understanding of yourself and of the world around you, as well as acceptance of it, and of responsibility for yourself that comes with rejecting a supernatural authority. People incapable of that just end up finding a substitute for God instead of enlightenment. Often, it is science, because it seems "smart", but not always.

Also, regarding the net numbers quoted. At first I was surprised, but then realized just how long 40 years is. Population grows, in just about 15 years, it increased by 1 billion. Also notice, most of this population growth is in undeveloped countries, where religion is still very strong. Especially Africa matters here, I expect that most of the Christian/Muslim increase comes from there. There's also Middle East and South America, both highly religious and full of developing countries with high birth rates. Buddhism is gaining some footing in the west, but I think that the main increase comes from India (as with Hinduism) and China. Religion is in a sharp decline in developed nations, most of which also experience a steady decline in birth rates. As such, net numbers for the whole world present a rather blurry image of how religion adherence actually changes.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: zookeeper on March 10, 2014, 05:35:29 pm
Well, 4 is interesting enough, I haven't seen that refuted before.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Ghostavo on March 10, 2014, 05:48:23 pm
Yes, well while I think this post is sufficiently polemic to stirr trouble in many parts of the internet it will probably go besides many heads here (like mine), who despite being atheists, are equally not very fond of these simplistic arguments as well... I think all the "counter-points" you raise are valid ones, and I would even disagree with Ghostavo here (and perhaps be a little bit polemic) in declaring that militant atheism does engage sometimes in worshipping the altar of Science as the Big Alternative to Religion, which is something that usually ends up in weird places like Scientism.

One thing that comes to mind and is mildly annoying to me is the Carl Sagan Wannabes that populate the blogosphere, the youtubosphere and whatever mainstream media is still visioned by humans (ahah telly), with propagandizing the "real wonders" of the world with Saganesque gasps and sighs at the minor things, repeating the same mantras on how beautiful and perfect the scientific method is and so on and so on, and how religious thought is just medieval stuff still hanging around pulling us back towards the dark ages, etc. OK, folks, we get it, you like Science. Can you please move the **** on?

Well, perhaps I'm committing a "no true scotsman" fallacy when I said no atheist. However, I'll state for the record that if you are deifying science, you are kind of going against the very definition of atheism. It seems kind of fuzzy.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think it's probably a reaction to the concerted attempt to undermine science in some parts of the world (e.g. creationism in the US, for instance) that causes some people to be vocal about science, rather than some sort of outburst of "sciency wonder".
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Luis Dias on March 10, 2014, 05:57:00 pm
Oh about that prognosis that Atheism will go minus 4 million in 30 years and so on, well that is somewhat dubious and questionable. It is a model of the future, and the future, as so many people eloquently have said, is hard to predict. So to have a prediction as evidence of anything is really bad methodology. I understand why you (or someone else from whom you copied this idea) felt the need to do so, after all how do you "debunk" an handwaving prediction if not with some more methodological socially based and apparently sound prediction (from excel sheets!)? Well. Let me just retort. Some hundreds of years ago, atheist numbers were probably around zero plus minus a million fools. Now they are hundreds of millions (much of europe is atheist, for example). I'd say that the long term isn't as shadowy for atheism as you would imply.

Ghostavo, whatever it is, it feels fake, over-the-top and annoying.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 08:09:27 am
Personally I find this pretty funny (being a Christian myself). Over the years I've seen pretty comically bad arguments on both sides of the religious debate, and these ones are pretty recurrent.

To be fair, I think the "long-term predictions" aren't likely to be particularly accurate. Which, I might add, has little to do with whether or not God exists; truth doesn't change based on popular opinion.

Quote from: Goober5000
Well first, the oppression and deaths are usually more appropriately ascribed to other causes, as you yourself pointed out here.  Second, religion really has improved the human condition and produced spiritual enlightenment in numerous, tangible ways.  In just one example, slavery has been practiced throughout human history and in every human culture; yet in the space of one human lifetime it was completely outlawed throughout the British Empire (and via political pressure, most of the rest of the world) by William Wilberforce and others following the convictions of their religion.

Great point. What bugs me a lot is the argument that "Here's something terrible that a Muslim did, here's something terrible that a Hindu did, here's something terrible that a Roman Polytheist did, so you should become an Atheist." A lot of Atheists make arguments against "Religion in general" which isn't particularly convincing to a specific religious person; if people in a religion other than mine are doing something terrible (or, more likely, if someone is claiming that they do so) it doesn't make me any less willing to follow my own religion.

and... great scott... no one is flaming! My faith in HLP is returning...
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 11, 2014, 09:20:08 am
Quote
Though it's worth pointing out that:
1.  The sophisticated argument is that organized religion is responsible for a large number of deaths and a significant amount of oppression around the world, both historically and in the present day, despite its mandate to improve the human condition and produce spiritual enlightenment.
Well first, the oppression and deaths are usually more appropriately ascribed to other causes, as you yourself pointed out here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87034.msg1739826#msg1739826).  Second, religion really has improved the human condition and produced spiritual enlightenment in numerous, tangible ways.  In just one example, slavery has been practiced throughout human history and in every human culture; yet in the space of one human lifetime it was completely outlawed throughout the British Empire (and via political pressure, most of the rest of the world) by William Wilberforce and others following the convictions of their religion.

The improvements brought by religion don't wipe away the deaths/oppression that is has brought, though - which are not attributable to other causes.  The Catholic Church burned an awful lot of people, and destroyed an awful lot of knowledge, primarily in the name of their religion.  Actually, the poor Catholic Church is citeable for many things; it also bears a considerable portion of the blame for the AIDS situation in Africa, as catholic leadership has repeatedly and decidedly denounced the use of condoms specifically as being against faith - a particularly egregious course of action when they hold large sway in that continent.  Continuing in just contemporary areas, fundamentalist Islamic countries hold 50% of their population hostage, denying basic rights like education, freedom of movement, and even liberty - again, done purely in the name of their faith.  Ironically, small sects of fundamentalist Jews do much the same thing.

So, while the argument that religion is a primary source of the majority of war is a fallacy, the argument that organized religion is itself responsible for a very large number of deaths, oppression, and abuse is definitely not.

Quote
This varies from country to country and from continent to continent.  While religion may be on the decline in North America and Europe, it is very much alive and growing in Africa and China.

Yes; but in terms of global population, the proportion of the population that is actively practicing in their religion is decreasing.  It's also worth pointing out that we have a considerable collection of demographic data now that shows - generally speaking - as countries industrialize and advance, the proportion of their populace that actively practices a religion drops.

Quote
While not denying that Christianity has indeed adopted various pagan and secular traditions from time to time, I'll point out that there is copious historical and documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus as described in Biblical terms.

By "as described in Biblical terms," I meant the quasi-magical abilities of Christ, not the political actions.  There is indeed a fair bit of evidence concerning his actions as man; on the contrary, there is virtually no evidence (discounting, of course, Biblical stories as being derived from unreliable narrators) of the more magical feats - walking on water, raising the dead, etc.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 01:21:12 pm
The problem is that Religious people think Science is looked at like a religion by 'atheists', and Scientists insist that Religion lives up to their demands of proof and repeatability.

This is never, ever going to work.

e: I will state though that, in the case of Wars, there is a difference between wars started over religion and wars being perpetuated by ongoing religious differences. Most of Europe was embroiled in wars throughout the continent and beyond during the 1500-1600's, and though they were, strictly speaking, Geopolitical wars, those Protestant/Catholic differences were a large cog in the motors that kept them running.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Luis Dias on March 11, 2014, 01:32:14 pm
Well the flipside of that (ahah couldn't resist sorry) is that protestantism and anglicanism whole point of existence was precisely one of geopolitical independence from southern europe influences from the get go. To state then that the religious differences and geopolitical matters are different "beasts" is ignoring this simple fact. Religions are, in a way, geopolitical identities dogmatized and fossilized.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 01:46:29 pm
That's the thing though, for a lot of human history the chief Religious force has been more synonymous with the chief Political force in most countries throughout the world, it's only pretty recently that people have tried to place a divide between the two. The Wars fought throughout the expansion years were two-fold in meaning. The primary purpose was to establish land for the country in question, but there was always an ulterior motive of enforcing or converting the religious beliefs of the Church that holds sway in that specific country.

So to try and say that a lot of wars were not religious but were political instead is kind of a faux-pas because until very recently it was sometimes very hard to distinguish between the two, because religion IS a political animal and always has been.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Aardwolf on March 11, 2014, 03:48:47 pm
Dionysus

  • He wasn’t born of a virgin. His mother was Semele (a mortal), and his father was Zeus.

Mary bore God's child, and was a virgin.
Semele bore Zeus' child, and was _____.

Explain to me the distinction.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: StarSlayer on March 11, 2014, 03:57:55 pm
Zeus has a long and storied history of sleeping around, and partaking in some pretty kinky **** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(mythology)).  In Jesus, God and Mary's case there was no intercourse, hence the whole "immaculate conception."
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Rhymes on March 11, 2014, 04:23:19 pm
The phrase you're looking for is "virgin birth." Immaculate conception refers to something different, but related, namely that Mary was conceived free of original sin. 

Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 11, 2014, 05:01:44 pm
Zeus has a long and storied history of sleeping around, and partaking in some pretty kinky **** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(mythology)).  In Jesus, God and Mary's case there was no intercourse, hence the whole "immaculate conception."

Or Mary was just the first woman to be believed when she ended up pregnant but tearfully claimed didn't have sex, thus ruining the excuse for every woman after her.  Alternatively, there is an extremely remote biological possibility that Mary could indeed have produced a child asexually.  Too bad we didn't have DNA gels before 0 CE or we could have gotten to the bottom of the whole affair. ;)

Mary:  "Joe, I'm pregnant."
Joseph: "Sonofa*****!"
Mary:  "No, it was God!  Wait, what did you just call me?!"
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: StarSlayer on March 11, 2014, 05:10:02 pm
Artificially inseminated by the Engineers?
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Aardwolf on March 11, 2014, 06:22:56 pm
Zeus has a long and storied history of sleeping around, and partaking in some pretty kinky **** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(mythology)).  In Jesus, God and Mary's case there was no intercourse, hence the whole "immaculate conception."

Or Mary was just the first woman to be believed when she ended up pregnant but tearfully claimed didn't have sex, thus ruining the excuse for every woman after her.  Alternatively, there is an extremely remote biological possibility that Mary could indeed have produced a child asexually.  Too bad we didn't have DNA gels before 0 CE or we could have gotten to the bottom of the whole affair. ;)

Mary:  "Joe, I'm pregnant."
Joseph: "Sonofa*****!"
Mary:  "No, it was God!  Wait, what did you just call me?!"

Well duh, but this is comparing one myth to another, not saying "this myth is a myth". Why bother?

Tangent: doesn't the hypothetical "rare asexual reproduction" scenario basically just produce a clone? So it couldn't be male.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 06:41:38 pm
@MP-Ryan: Regarding Africa, this is a non-sequetur. AIDS is spread by people with multiple-partner behaviors, and such people are highly unlikely to be practicing Catholics.
Th Catholic Church banned condoms on the grounds that they do more harm than good by preventing children from being born and discouraging martial fidelity. Catholics in Africa advocated a more effective solution to AIDS: abstinence till marriage. There's no denying it works... when it's practiced. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 06:46:22 pm
Quote
Regarding Africa, this is a non-sequetur. AIDS is spread by people with multiple-partner behaviors, and such people are highly unlikely to be practicing Catholics.

I must admit, I disagree with that statement, I don't think there's any real evidence that being a practicing Catholic ensures monogamy, that's a human variable not a religious one. Considering recent revelations within the Church itself, if even the Holy representatives of the Faith can fall prey to human fallacies, I do not think there is any real weight to the concept that the followers of that Faith would be any more immune to them.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 06:54:26 pm
Zeus has a long and storied history of sleeping around, and partaking in some pretty kinky **** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(mythology)).  In Jesus, God and Mary's case there was no intercourse, hence the whole "immaculate conception."

Or Mary was just the first woman to be believed when she ended up pregnant but tearfully claimed didn't have sex, thus ruining the excuse for every woman after her.  Alternatively, there is an extremely remote biological possibility that Mary could indeed have produced a child asexually.  Too bad we didn't have DNA gels before 0 CE or we could have gotten to the bottom of the whole affair. ;)

Mary:  "Joe, I'm pregnant."
Joseph: "Sonofa*****!"
Mary:  "No, it was God!  Wait, what did you just call me?!"

Then again, if this is your approach I'm just wasting my time... :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 06:56:04 pm
Quote
Regarding Africa, this is a non-sequetur. AIDS is spread by people with multiple-partner behaviors, and such people are highly unlikely to be practicing Catholics.

I must admit, I disagree with that statement, I don't think there's any real evidence that being a practicing Catholic ensures monogamy, that's a human variable not a religious one. Considering recent revelations within the Church itself, if even the Holy representatives of the Faith can fall prey to human fallacies, I do not think there is any real weight to the concept that the followers of that Faith would be any more immune to them.

I don't see how it's not a religious one, and if it's not than religious teachings on sexuality/condoms/etc wouldn't be able to effect AIDS either way.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 07:07:03 pm
It's not a religious issue because it's been going on for centuries in every corner of the globe, regardless of what the local religion says.

Like religion throughout history, picking and choosing is the problem, it's easy to say 'Ah, the Bible says women should obey their men', and 'The Bible says I mustn't use a Condom', so those parts of Catholic doctrine were emphasized, whilst other parts were downplayed. Intervention by the Church on the ground would have had an impact because it already has in the opposite direction. The Catholic teachings are used as an excuse not to use a condom, so if the Catholic preaching changes, the excuse is taken away.

Basically, a plethora of Churches have failed to get people to stop acting like people, and refusal to endorse methods that could at least mitigate the potential damage of people being people only increases the damage it does.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 11, 2014, 07:16:08 pm
this thing is all over the place.

but anyway, as others have said it's hard to distinguish between religion and politics for much of history. Religion certainly is an excellent catalyst for oppression and violence right now.

I don't hear that many atheists talking up about the inevitable collapse of religion, I hear hope for it, and anything that indicates it does get promoted, but most atheists are more worried about it getting stronger if anything.
but besides this how is making this a popularity contest going to help anything? (though that net loss seems suspicious, from what I understand global growth is fairly flat)

Europe's dark age was a time of ignorance and superstition, mainly due to the collapse of education as a result of de-urbanization. all of the worlds knowledge was in books few could read. religion was a highly effective tool for controlling the ignorant masses, keeping the serfs in line. this was the time and place that defined all of the typical anti-religious cliches and ties back into that whole "hard to separate religion from politics back in the day" thing.
one thing I would like to specifically address though is I find calling anyone from this time or earlier a scientist highly questionable, these were 'natural philosophers'. you cannot name any oppressed scientists prior to 1500 because there really weren't any of them, science is a fairly new thing. now what I would like to see is a listing of people from 800-1500 in Europe who proclaimed anything significantly opposed to Christianity on any sort of (preferably natural) philosophical grounds. Religion retards science not (typically) by opposing it wholesale, but by making it culturally/politically impossible to teach truths that are not inline with said religion.

That last one, though perhaps technically right on some presented details, is fairly wrong in the bigger point, there were TONs of similar mythological figures historically. not that I consider it important, but I said something about all the other points.

Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 11, 2014, 07:18:15 pm
@MP-Ryan: Regarding Africa, this is a non-sequetur. AIDS is spread by people with multiple-partner behaviors, and such people are highly unlikely to be practicing Catholics.
Th Catholic Church banned condoms on the grounds that they do more harm than good by preventing children from being born and discouraging martial fidelity. Catholics in Africa advocated a more effective solution to AIDS: abstinence till marriage. There's no denying it works... when it's practiced. :rolleyes:

and it's effectively impossible for the vast majority of people to practice it.

also how is "preventing children from being born" a harm?
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Luis Dias on March 11, 2014, 07:28:16 pm
Quote
Regarding Africa, this is a non-sequetur. AIDS is spread by people with multiple-partner behaviors, and such people are highly unlikely to be practicing Catholics.

I must admit, I disagree with that statement, I don't think there's any real evidence that being a practicing Catholic ensures monogamy, that's a human variable not a religious one. Considering recent revelations within the Church itself, if even the Holy representatives of the Faith can fall prey to human fallacies, I do not think there is any real weight to the concept that the followers of that Faith would be any more immune to them.

I don't see how it's not a religious one, and if it's not than religious teachings on sexuality/condoms/etc wouldn't be able to effect AIDS either way.

It does by spreading the idea that condoms don't work, that celibacy works better, etc. Well, doh, celibacy does work better, the problem is that in the heat of the moment the thoughts of many aren't on celibacy at all, and that condom they could have bought or be given they just dismissed previously because of the words of the priests.

Your thinking rationale could be reversed here, pay attention: if all catholics are celibates (yeah lol), then why the need for even discussing condoms in the first place? Yet they did, ad nauseam.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 07:33:13 pm
Thing is, we're talking about a place where women buy fish with sex (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26186194) because it is the only currency they have. Whilst the long term solution is development, that doesn't help the short-term situation, whilst the repairs might take years, damage control could be improved right now.

e: And lets not ignore the male psyche here, Kenya is 25% Catholic, but I wonder how many 20 minute conversions there are when a woman asks a man to wear protection?
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 07:34:21 pm
I would hardly call it impossible.
Almost all these points (science, oppression) already had answers given either by me or the OP, so I'm not going to beat the dead horse.
And one of the most important principles of Christianity is that children are a blessing, because every life is valuable and everyone has a right to live. A principle sadly neglected these days...

@Luis: I said "till Marriage..."
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 11, 2014, 07:36:28 pm
Th Catholic Church banned condoms on the grounds that they do more harm than good by preventing children from being born and discouraging martial fidelity. Catholics in Africa advocated a more effective solution to AIDS: abstinence till marriage. There's no denying it works... when it's practiced. :rolleyes:

And if that was all they did, you might have a point.

Nothing however justifies the Catholic Church spreading the outright lie that the HIV virus was small enough that it could pass straight through condoms (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids). Spread that lie amongst people who already don't particularly want to be using condoms in the first place and you're going to kill a lot of people.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 07:42:38 pm
It's kind of like the subject of Masturbation, until very recently the Catholic Church was under the impression that, because of their teachings, no Roman Catholic ever masturbated (because this is also spilling seed on barren ground).

The Catholic Church has been very quiet about the sin of Masturbation lately because they know they are onto a loser, and yet it falls under the exact same doctrine as Condoms...
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: InsaneBaron on March 11, 2014, 07:46:06 pm
@ Karajorma: I don't know, the failure rate on condoms seems suspiciously high.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Scotty on March 11, 2014, 07:48:24 pm
@ Karajorma: I don't know, the failure rate on condoms seems suspiciously high.

It's significantly lower than the failure rate on not using condoms.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flipside on March 11, 2014, 07:51:11 pm
Failure is physical damage to the prophylactic itself, not stuff getting through the rubber, Condoms are, on average, around 72% effective, i.e. 18 out of 100 will split, though this number increases to the high 90% if the Condom is used correctly, so education is, once again, the key.

e: This is why most birth-control advice suggests not relying wholly on the use of Condoms, however as a prevention for STD's, even 72% protection is far better than 0%.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 11, 2014, 07:55:13 pm
@ Karajorma: I don't know, the failure rate on condoms seems suspiciously high.

I edited my post to include a link. The Vatican didn't claim the condoms failed. They claimed that the virus could actually pass straight through the condom. Not only is this a flat out lie, it's an easily verifiable lie. Fill a condom with a solution of the HIV virus. Stick it in a beaker full of water, after 10 minutes test the beaker. 

Don't try to justify them lying and resulting in thousands if not millions of deaths.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 11, 2014, 08:20:46 pm
I would hardly call it impossible.

give me an example of a reasonably decent sized population that practiced it well.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Beskargam on March 11, 2014, 08:37:10 pm
Points that I have to contribute

1. During the middle ages, the church was important in the preservation of knowledge in that they were essentially the only organization both storing books and transcribing them when they fell apart or even translating them at all. This is all prior to the printing press.

2. As someone who was raised Catholic, standard Catholic teaching holds that immaculate conception refers to how Mary was given child by the holy spirit, not her lack of sin.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Luis Dias on March 11, 2014, 08:42:17 pm
You are wrong, Beskargam. Immaculate conception is the sinless birth of Mary, not the "virgin birth" of her son. I was a catholic too, so that's that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Beskargam on March 11, 2014, 08:52:37 pm
o.0 Doesn't sound right...It's possible I've forgotten, I've honestly not thought about any of what I learned in a long time haha. Checked elsewhere besides wikipedia, I concede you are right. whoops
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 11, 2014, 10:44:01 pm
Tangent: doesn't the hypothetical "rare asexual reproduction" scenario basically just produce a clone? So it couldn't be male.

There was a paper published on this subject several years ago.  Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the genetics, it is theoretically possible that if Mary had an X-Y translocation on her inactivated X chromosome, there is a remote possibility that she could have conceived a male child without sexual intercourse or a male DNA contribution.

However, the chances of that occurring in a human female are basically so remote as to be non-existent, and it would actually pose a theological problem as it would demonstrate that Mary herself was genetically flawed and not at all created "in God's image," supposing of course that "God's image" is, by the usual strict interpretation, a heterosexual person with an intact complement of 46 intact chromosomes in all the right order and configuration.

As for InsaneBaron's bit about condoms and the Catholic Church, I believe other responders have addressed it more than adequately at this juncture.  On the subject of HIV, however, transmission can occur even within monogamous couples if one partner is infected by other means.  Is it really the Church's place to suggest a couple should not have intercourse when married, or, more controversially, that one partner should be subjected to the consequences of a life-altering virus on the basis of religious doctrine?

Like I said before - a lot of deaths and oppression can be laid at the feet of organized religions.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Flak on March 11, 2014, 11:02:50 pm
Umm, what is this?

At least it is right about two things, Renaissance come up because the church screw up, and the same goes with post modernism.

I know for sure Muslims acknowledged that Jesus was born from virgin birth. I am not sure about Catholic view, but as Protestant, we still see Mary as a human.

The concept of "Image of God" or Imago Dei basically goes much deeper than that. It is not limited to only in biological sense. Even people born with disabilities or have genetic flaws are still considered to have Image of God in them like anyone else. It is part of what make us human and without it, we are just another animal.

X-Y chromosome? That is an interesting explanation. I wish there is a time machine so some doctors can examine that for us. Perhaps they can make some great findings. We are not supposed to be anti-science do we. When another truth comes to light, we have to learn.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 11, 2014, 11:27:40 pm
On the subject of HIV, however, transmission can occur even within monogamous couples if one partner is infected by other means.  Is it really the Church's place to suggest a couple should not have intercourse when married, or, more controversially, that one partner should be subjected to the consequences of a life-altering virus on the basis of religious doctrine?

Actually to be fair to the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict actually came out and said that the use of condoms in such a case is permissible (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-benedict-xvi-vatican-condoms-men-women-condoms-prevent-spread-hiv-article-1.455733). Although the way he initially said it could be taken another way (http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/11/23/pope-benedict-and-condoms-what-he-did-and-did-not-say.htm).
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 12, 2014, 10:55:30 am
On the subject of HIV, however, transmission can occur even within monogamous couples if one partner is infected by other means.  Is it really the Church's place to suggest a couple should not have intercourse when married, or, more controversially, that one partner should be subjected to the consequences of a life-altering virus on the basis of religious doctrine?

Actually to be fair to the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict actually came out and said that the use of condoms in such a case is permissible (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-benedict-xvi-vatican-condoms-men-women-condoms-prevent-spread-hiv-article-1.455733). Although the way he initially said it could be taken another way (http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/11/23/pope-benedict-and-condoms-what-he-did-and-did-not-say.htm).

The second source appears to be the more complete analysis, and contradict the first one, and discusses the same statements by the Pope as far as I can see (both were published on the same day).

So... it doesn't appear at all clear.  Regardless, the generalized point that I was stating earlier - not that religion is responsible for all wars, but rather is responsible for many deaths and significant oppression - has a number of examples, of which the HIV issue is only one (and it is an example in modern Catholicism).
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 12, 2014, 11:25:34 am
The first one includes details of a later, clarifying statement which the second one does not. Leading me to believe that the writer of the second piece wasn't aware of that statement at the time it was written.

That said, it is still a very murky subject which the Catholic Church should come out and clarify once and for all.


In the end, I posted not to say your main point was wrong (I happen to agree with it) but because I don't think it's in anyone's interests to incorrectly state what has been said by the Pope. Which is why I posted both arguments.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: MP-Ryan on March 12, 2014, 11:27:05 am
In the end, I posted not to say your main point was wrong (I happen to agree with it) but because I don't think it's in anyone's interests to incorrectly state what has been said by the Pope. Which is why I posted both arguments.

Fair enough.  It appears no one knows exactly what Emperor Popetine meant, anyway =)  Perhaps the new fellow will offer some clarity.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Herra Tohtori on March 12, 2014, 12:34:52 pm
Discounting the actual effects of religions on societies throughout history (which I believe should be looked at as a product of the times anyway and no strictly "positive" or "negative influences), I think there are far better arguments against Christianity - and other related religions - that stem from the theology and doctrines of Christianity itself.

Two most important ones are:

1. The contradictory or inconsistent definitions of theological terminology such as "god" or "heaven" which really make it impossible to even properly discuss things because you can always just pick the definition used by the particular theologian/imam/part of scripture you happen to prefer to others,

and

2. The moral depravity of the doctrine of salvation and the divine legislation that made its way to the scriptures of modern Abrahamic religions.


In other words, if Christian (or Islamic or Judaic) theology were actually true I would want nothing to do with that God, because I disagree with many of his policies.


So in addition to my atheism, which mainly stems from my materialistic world view, I have serious issues with the theological facts of Christianity and other related religions.


I also argue that the good things done by churches are not necessarily attributable to the religion the church represents.

In other words, why is that when religious organizations do good things they are seen as examples of positive influence of said religion, but if non-religious organizations do the same things (with less strings attached!) it's rarely seen as an example of positive influence of non-religion but rather as the thing it is: They are an example of an organization of people doing things that benefit itself along with the society.


Any person or organization - religiously affiliated or not - has the potential for good deeds as much as potential for bad. Christian organizations doing good things is not any kind of argument for Christianity itself being "a power for good".
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Goober5000 on March 12, 2014, 04:01:00 pm
2. The moral depravity of the doctrine of salvation and the divine legislation that made its way to the scriptures of modern Abrahamic religions.

Eh?  What exactly is depraved about it, and by what standard are you judging it to be depraved?
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 12, 2014, 04:30:31 pm
the idea that humans are irredeemably horrible requiring a literal miracle to cleanse the taint of their own sin.

...would be my guess as to what he was talking about.


Though if I was going to take a quick drive by attack at the moral authority of an absolute moral authority it would be something along the lines of the Euthyphro's dilemma.

to which I imagine a person such as your self would respond to by appealing to the idea of said's authority's nature.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Herra Tohtori on March 12, 2014, 08:55:39 pm
Eh?  What exactly is depraved about it, and by what standard are you judging it to be depraved?


I'm judging it by my own standard of what I deem good and right, just like everyone else does.

And where do I start with? I suppose my main argument is what Bobboau said, that humans are supposedly tainted so badly by our nature or our ancestors' actions (depending on interpretation) that it's impossible for us to get to heaven, and that the best solution God could come up with was to incarnate as a sinless human, go through the experience of dying, leave instructions to 11 guys to spread the word that NOW the only path to salvation / heaven is through believing that Jesus/God died for our sins so that we could get to Heaven, or have everlasting life, or however it's expressed.

This is a highly dubious plan from an all-knowing, all-powerful creator being. Basically, it turns out that his creation turned out so flawed that we didn't fulfill his standards for good company in heaven, so he applied this scheme to... I dunno, filter in the people who go along with this plan, and exclude those who don't believe in it? And this selection process is based on faith alone? Wouldn't it be simpler to just change the heaven - which he created - so that it's easier for the things he created to get in? Why did God need to experience the pain of physically tortured to death as a human, in order to create this backport?

Not only that, but I find the idea of human sacrifice distasteful in general - if I'm such a bad person that I don't deserve to wear that uniform, the idea that someone dying an agonizing death makes me able to skip the judgement process makes me highly uncomfortable. If the premise of humans being faulty beyond salvation were true, then why exactly does Jesus' death change things at all?


Then there's the afterlife itself. Described as "Heaven", an eternal life of blissful happiness, it is actually one of the most disturbing mental images that I can imagine - second only to the doctrine of Hell, which comes first.

The obvious fault in the concept of Heaven is that due to the faith-based (or arbitrary, who knows) selection process, no one gets to heaven even in a best case scenario.

Let's consider a person of faith. He believes in just the right religion, and after his death, he is rewarded by being accepted into Heaven, to do whatever heaven beings do.

But this person has a family, people close to him, people whom he loves and misses while in heaven.

Some of these people are not accepted to go to heaven. In some variants, they just fade into nonexistence after death, forgotten and eternally dead. In the more seriously flawed variants, they are sent to Hell to suffer for all eternity.

Needless to say, when the person who got to heaven realizes that some of his close ones didn't make it, this would cause some level of mental anguish and sadness.

But since Heaven is a place with no suffering, he cannot feel sad about his family members who he will never again see. Either his thinking will be altered so that he does not miss them, does not feel bad for them not getting to heaven, or his memory is altered so that he doesn't even remember they ever existed.

In either case, the person in Heaven is no longer the actual person who lived and loved the people who didn't get to go to Heaven.


And, of course, the doctrine of Hell (which thankfully is not central to most directions of Christianity despite popular belief) makes all this even worse, because now lack of faith is not only something that makes you miss on a reward (which is ethically problematic in itself), but instead it is a crime that will be punished.

In fact, non-believers are sentenced to receive infinite punishment for a finite crime, which is about as morally wrong as things can be.

Not only that, but faith is something that a person either has, or doesn't have. It's not a matter of choice either, so it's not a question of free will. The logical conclusion is that God has sentenced non-believers to death/hell/non-heaven and there is nothing non-believers can do about it, which again doesn't seem very ethically sustainable but whatever.



And yes - there is indeed the dilemma mentioned by Bobboay. Personally, I believe God's commands can't make an action ethical. It would be exactly the same as war criminals saying that they only obeyed orders. We don't accept that as a valid excuse from soldiers, and neither should we consider God's commands inherently moral - at least, I can't do that, but maybe I value human life and human mind more than God.

By the way, while thankfully most sects of Christianity do not try to apply some of the more insane commandments of God, they pretty much have to engage in tremendous amounts of intellectual dishonesty to justify ignoring the majority of the completely repugnant commandments written in their Holy Book, while still trying to maintain that the few socially, legally and ethically somewhat acceptable commandments are proof of how wise and loving this God is and how it is so much better to follow the moral guidance given by this religion than to try and decide on your own what's good and right.


And, perhaps the most personally offensive assertion that most religions do is that morality comes from God and that humans cannot behave in a moral way without (conscious or unconscious) guidance from God.

An evolution of this form is that when a person (believer OR non-believer) behaves in a moral way, it is always proof of God's influence, but when they behave in perceived immoral way, it's not seen as God's influence...
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 12, 2014, 10:03:18 pm
Either his thinking will be altered so that he does not miss them, does not feel bad for them not getting to heaven, or his memory is altered so that he doesn't even remember they ever existed.

You missed the BEST option, that the only people deemed morally acceptable to enter heaven are those who would be delighted to see their former loved ones burning in hell for all eternity after receiving the righteous judgement they deserved from the all knowing always right heavenly father. That god's chosen morally superior are the ones who could turn their backs on a dime on those who they loved the most.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 13, 2014, 12:33:44 am
I find the story of Job to be the best "In a nutshell" example of why I can't personally follow the God of the Bible. I wouldn't follow anyone who would step aside and allow an innocent man to be tortured and have his children killed in order to win a bet.

If that's divine morality, I'd rather have human morality.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Goober5000 on March 13, 2014, 12:37:11 am
I find the story of Job to be the best "In a nutshell" example of why I can't personally follow the God of the Bible. I wouldn't follow anyone who would step aside and allow an innocent man to be tortured and have his children killed in order to win a bet.

Have you read the end of the Book of Job?  And not just the very end, the chapter or two leading up to it?  Job has spent the entire book demanding an answer from God, demanding a reason for his suffering, and yet when God finally shows up, Job is utterly speechless.  He [Job] deems his own questions irrelevant.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 13, 2014, 12:44:49 am
Pity he didn't think to ask for his dead kids to be resurrected then.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Scourge of Ages on March 13, 2014, 01:11:33 am
God did not allow Job to be tormented simply to win a bet. It was to prove a very, very important point: That a human being, at least one of us, could continue to stay loyal to God, no matter what happened to him.
 
Job didn't stay faithful because he knew he'd get a fat reward in the end, he didn't do it because it'd be an insult to Satan, and he didn't do it because he was too blind to realize what was happening. He knew that God was not the one causing the bad things that were happening, so he stayed loyal, proving that a sinful, imperfect human could do what the first perfect man could not.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: karajorma on March 13, 2014, 05:01:22 am
Except that God allowed everything that happened to Job to happen to him simply because he wanted to prove that point. Except that God is the one who brought Job to Satan's attention in the first place. Except that God could have stopped Satan at any point but only went as far as to set the rules of their little wager.

But anyway, if you really want to argue the issue, go refute HT's points as they are much less vulnerable to this sort of argument. You can reply to my points but quite frankly I'd rather see you answer HT's.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on March 13, 2014, 06:02:55 am
2. The moral depravity of the doctrine of salvation and the divine legislation that made its way to the scriptures of modern Abrahamic religions.

Eh?  What exactly is depraved about it, and by what standard are you judging it to be depraved?

Well there's **** like the Calvinist perspective on salvation where God arbitrarily decides that some people will be saved and the rest will be eternally damned, that's quite depraved.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 13, 2014, 08:46:08 am
also Jephthah.
I don't think I need to explain myself with that one at all.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 13, 2014, 08:55:48 am
God did not allow Job to be tormented simply to win a bet. It was to prove a very, very important point: That a human being, at least one of us, could continue to stay loyal to God, no matter what happened to him.
 
Job didn't stay faithful because he knew he'd get a fat reward in the end, he didn't do it because it'd be an insult to Satan, and he didn't do it because he was too blind to realize what was happening. He knew that God was not the one causing the bad things that were happening, so he stayed loyal, proving that a sinful, imperfect human could do what the first perfect man could not.

honestly this sounds like evidence in favor of my point (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87059.msg1740269#msg1740269)
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Herra Tohtori on March 13, 2014, 09:54:19 am
I think we've had a few discussions before on the topic of Book of Job, but sure, I'll bite.

God did not allow Job to be tormented simply to win a bet. It was to prove a very, very important point: That a human being, at least one of us, could continue to stay loyal to God, no matter what happened to him.

Isn't that exactly the definition of a bet?


Quote
Job didn't stay faithful because he knew he'd get a fat reward in the end, he didn't do it because it'd be an insult to Satan, and he didn't do it because he was too blind to realize what was happening.

And also probably because the social structure around him made it fairly impossible to denounce God. He probably would have been stoned to death as an apostate if he voiced any concerns about the situation actually


Quote
He knew that God was not the one causing the bad things that were happening, so he stayed loyal, proving that a sinful, imperfect human could do what the first perfect man could not.


But of course God was the one causing the bad things that were happening. There is a direct causal relation between God's actions and what happened to Job.

Furthermore there's the question of where did Satan come from, so it all boils down to God anyway. He's a colossal dick no matter how you look at it.



By the way, there's also the fact that what Job was thinking during this whole storyline is largely irrelevant when you look at all the rest of stuff that's happening. Job is merely one person in the story - but since it was very much a Man's World that the story originated in, of course he's the only relevant character. Job's children died, his wife abandoned him. He would have had bonds with these people, if he was a normal person. Most of the people in his service died as well, and that just because of being associated to Job - they would have had their own families that would have suffered from their loss, not to mention that all these people who died surely did not want to die to settle a dispute they never even knew of.

Job's wife is perhaps the most human character in the whole story, one whom I feel great sympathy for. She also lost her children. Both her and Job had to deal with that loss. It is a loss that cannot be recovered. We can get used to loss, and learn to cope with it, and even form new relationships, but there is no way a "new family" would be a 1:1 replacement of the original. In fact, Job goes through a pretty severe form of depression due to his loss and suffering and wishes he had never been born.

But even in his depression, his indoctrination to God holds fast, and while he's spouting nonsense with his friends, his wife takes a hike - a wise move, I should say, all things considered.

In the final confrontation between God and Job, God basically just says "I AM THE GREETIST" in a very verbose way, outlining that he knows things that Job doesn't, and can do things that Job can't. And Job realizes that this being has no understanding of human suffering, and decides there's nothing to be gained by pushing the issue and doesn't contradict God any further because he's afraid (and for a good reason) that God might get angry at him and, behaving like any grown-up obviously should, remove the annoyance. It's a thoroughly unsatisfying resolution, and Job's reaction is similar to someone trying to talk to an armed stranger who's behaving vaguely threatening and unhinged, pointing a gun at you and asking if you'd want to further question him...


The book never mentions what happens to Job's wife, but it's implied that in the end, she's also replaced and Job has new children and property - more than before. But the dead people remain dead...


Anyone who has ever lost a family member would probably understand perfectly well why Job was "rendered speechless" at the end of the story.



But I don't think Job's story is the moral bottom of the Bible. There are a lot more offensive things there, like the parts about repeated genocides, slavery, and all the offenses listed as punishable by death. And we haven't even touched upon the immoral (and contradictory) teachings of Jesus yet! New Testament is not in any way better source of morality than the Old Testament (in fact with its Salvation doctrine it is worse, for reasons I already outlined in my previous post).

All in all, I wouldn't say majority of Christians are good people because of Christianity.

Majority of Christians are good people despite Christianity. Just like majority of muslims are good people despite Islam, by the way, this applies to pretty much all ideologies and religions.

There are thankfully very few people who take all the instructions of the Bible literally. Most Christians have a better source for their morality and they actually use it to judge which parts of the Bible are worth following. The annoying part is when they still claim their morality to come from the Bible, when it obviously doesn't...
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Scourge of Ages on March 13, 2014, 04:44:17 pm
But anyway, if you really want to argue the issue, go refute HT's points as they are much less vulnerable to this sort of argument. You can reply to my points but quite frankly I'd rather see you answer HT's.

I did want to address his concerns, but there was a lot there and I just realized that that post would take a long time to write. I'll see if I can't handle a few things now. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.

1. God was directly responsible for Job's suffering.
 No. He simply allowed it to happen in order to prove an important point. Look at it this way: A terrorist blows up 20 people. Whose fault is it, the terrorist's or the government's that refused to negotiate with terrorists?

2. What was so important about that point he was trying to prove? What is with God and allowing his faithful followers to suffer horribly and/or die because of their loyalty?
 This is the big question. It comes down to whether humanity needs God or not. I'll explain:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. (Hitchhikers Guide joke goes here) He made angels, who were perfect, and two humans, who were perfect. They were perfect in the sense that their bodies and minds were without flaw: While they all had free will, they had complete control over their thoughts and impulses.

One of the perfect angels would become known as Satan. He was not content to allow God to be the god of everything; Satan wanted humans to worship him instead, and the first step in that was to turn them against God. He deceived Eve, who fell for it since she'd never seen deception before. Adam was not deceived, he consciously made a decision to disobey God's command to eat from that tree. The consequences of that choice were the removal of his perfect condition, and that of all humans who would be born from him. This introduced sin and imperfection into humanity.
Why didn't God just eliminate them and start over then and there? For one, it'd be like a kid flipping the game board when his opponent makes a move he doesn't like. For another thing, the issue that Satan raised needed to be addressed: "Do humans need God, or will we be fine by ourselves?"

God never wanted people to suffer. If Adam had stayed loyal, the Earth would still be filled with perfect people who could live in peace and safety. This is still the ultimate goal. But for now, instead, God allows humanity to try to make their own way in order to prove to Satan, the other angels, and humanity as a whole, what the correct course is.

People who remain loyal to God and serve him the way that he intends are rewarded now by inner peace, and attempt to make and keep peace with all those around them, and will be rewarded in the future for their loyalty. Those who oppose God and live their lives contrary to the way he instructs are not directly punished. But that thinking is what led to the world being in its current state where we have fear, violence, war, greed and selfishness, and suffering.

3. What's up with Jesus getting tortured and murdered?
 Jesus, the Son of God, was born as a perfect human. He had three reasons to be here: The first was to prove that a perfect human could endure everything that could be thrown at him and stay loyal until death. The second was that a perfect, loyal, human life was needed to balance the perfect, disloyal human life of Adam; this was the only thing that could satisfy God's sense of justice. The third was to tell us how the salvation of the human race would happen, and how we could be imperfect but still acceptable to God.

4. What's about Hell? I thought you said that God didn't want people to suffer?
 He doesn't. Hell, as popularly thought of as a place of eternal torment, is not a real thing in the Bible. When a person dies, the place he goes that is usually translated as "hell" is simply "the grave" or the condition of being dead. Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that the dead are conscious of nothing at all. Besides, a place where people are tortured for eternity for the sins of a few years is incompatible with a loving God. And yes, I do believe that he is loving, because despite all the pain in the world, I know why it is and that it won't last forever.


OK. I know that didn't address everything here, but hopefully it'll be a start. Let me know if anybody'd like something specific.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Bobboau on March 13, 2014, 05:39:03 pm
No. He simply allowed it to happen in order to prove an important point. Look at it this way: A terrorist blows up 20 people. Whose fault is it, the terrorist's or the government's that refused to negotiate with terrorists?

God points Job out to Satan, Satan says he only loves you because you blessed him, and God tells Satan to go do his worst to Job and see what happens. how is that not god basically ordering a hit on Job('s wealth, family and health)?

If the government told the terrorists they could blow them up and not face any consequences, when the terrorists had previously no apparent specific interest in doing so, then the answer to your hypothetical is 'the government'.
Title: Re: Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)
Post by: Luis Dias on March 13, 2014, 05:55:18 pm
That seems fine and dandy except that its filled with heretical notions. You'd be burned at the stake for proclaiming these just a few centuries ago.

More to the point, and this is one of the biggest problems with religion, is this constant feeling of having to disprove or challenge millions of different "interpretations" of every single religion, every single opinionated human being with their own version of metaphysical truth, seemingly knowing objectively the mind of God, what he wants, what really happened, how to correctly interpret the bible or the koran or whatever. And they are all knowing this, but saying different things altogether.

The mere proclamation that "hell does not exist" not only contradicts with some excerpts of the bible itself, it conflicts with Catholicism and the majority of Protestantism theology. Hell is preached and its existence defended by the majority of apologists. You disagree, fine, I'm 100% ok with this, but have in mind this particular problem: you have as much authority in this issue as those who disagree with you. In my opinion, a zero authority (who has seen what goes on after one dies at all?). Now to your points...


1. Allowing is not wholly different than being responsible. If you see a baby walking in a road, see a vehicle running against him and you know you can save him but don't, you "allowed" it, but you were also responsible for his death. Perhaps you could get away with it legally, but morally everyone would condemn you. Job goes through so much suffering in that particular story that it's impossible it was just "bad luck" going berserk.

And I also disagree with your interpretation in a key aspect of the story. The three theologian friends who gather around him trying to explain all of his "curse" as being part of God's plan or his fault or whatever, they were all shown to be false by both Job and God who dismisses them absolutely. They were wrong, and thus you are also wrong in painting Job's curse as anything meaningful, let alone an "experiment" to prove that men could remain loyal despite it all. The point of God's rant at the end is precisely to state how miniscule our brains are and how we just are unable to comprehend God's actions and so we shouldn't even try. In this sense, why are you doing exactly so? You are repeating Job's friends mistakes.

To talk about experiments within the prospect of a perfect being who can see the future is also tantalizingly contradictory. Experiments only make sense in a contingent and imperfect, unknown, not-omniscient worldview. If God is omniscient, he should not need this. But I can dismiss this as a kind of an imperfection that comes from the projection of godly problems into human language... although I'm not entirely certain the story can survive such translation.

2. The whole genesis story is filled with problems that you are not solving here. While you paint a story about everything being perfect and that the problem is Adam's free will freely choosing to eat an apple against God's wishes, we should not forget that this reasoning is the same reasoning that many apologists give to justify all the suffering in the world. Children are born with Cancer. Why? Because Adam ate an apple. You see the problem here, the obscenity of it? While it looks good on paper alone, when you confront it with the actual suffering of every day life it becomes abhorrent.

The idea that we should all suffer because our great great great great great great grandfather made one wrong choice against God paints the latter as eggregiously malevolent. And let's not forget the primary source of evil here: the tree of knowledge. If one wants any source for why religion can be such a pain in the ass towards inquiry, skepticism, truth seeking and science overall, well look no further than Genesis.

Nevermind that this God really stressed out of his whole humanity creation, thought it a really bad idea and at one moment decided that the only cure was to kill everyone in the planet except for a single family. Probably Adam's fault too. Damn apple.

3. The idea then develops to the Atonement. God made himself a human so that he could suffer with us. I'm fine with that part, seems rather compassionate and interested. What better way to show your respect and understanding for a suffering species than turning yourself into one for a full lifetime? He even becomes an atheist at the very end of his journey. All great stuff. But if you look at the greater picture what do you see? I see a God who, to save humanity from itself (again) arranged a better way other than drowning them altogether: let's make a human sacrifice out of myself! Such civilized manners. This will please Me, as all the goats before have had, but better because I'm the one being offered to myself. So there he goes cross in his shoulder, carrying all the "sins of the world". He dies and ressurects. And without this, we wouldn't know good from evil. And if we do not accept this story as anything really mildly sane, we are again thrown into the lake of fire (to be either exterminated or just suffer endlessly, depending on how generous the apologist feels like).


4. The dead are ressurected and then judged. Hell happens afterwards. You should know this.