The Amazing Race and Amazing Grace
While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share. That's a country that knows little or nothing about Christianity. A country that has had little or no contact with Christianity. Go live in China. Become an anthropologist and study their culture for a couple of years. Then come back and tell me that only Christianity can provide an objective basis for morals. Then tell me God was smart when he sent his so-called Son in the Middle Eastern ancient world. Then tell me no one will be saved except through Jesus, or that the Chinese people who don't believe will go to hell. Do it with a straight face, an honest face. All of the apologist's arguments to explain away religious diversity will fall on deaf ears.
And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]
And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]
43 comments:
I want to be a "preacher." In some ways I already do. I love non-christians. I love athiests, lesbians, "liberals"...etc. My wife and I have them over for dinner on a regular basis. We don't indoctrinate, we simply love like Jesus. We are not irrational. Our love is rational, like it was rational to love my wife and ask her to marry me.
I didn't know we could debunk things just by declaring it; that's pretty cool. Gosh, what are you going to do with yourself now that Christianity's been debunked? Maybe you could become an atheist apologist and evangelize among all the poor believers. Or shoot, since you're so good at debunking things, maybe you should just debunk everything. Yeah, you should debunk science now. Oh wait, it's already been debunked. Oh, I know, you should take down atheism while you're at it. No one would see that coming. Rats, I forgot it's already been done. Guess there's nothing left. Guess you could go play backgammon, but I'm sure that's next.
Interesting.
I wonder what the revival of the Christian church in China is going to do with your theory.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/06/christian-church-in-china.html
Or what about China’s wonderful record on human rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
http://www.amnestyusa.org/china/page.do?id=1011134
Might want to reconsider a few things.
Or, you could go to China and visit the Christians over there... that might convince you that Christianity has not been debunked at all.
But, I know that you're not really serious... you just say outrageous things to get Christians all riled up.
Why must Christians believe that those who have not heard Christianity will 'go to hell'?
i'm thining along these lines...
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-would-a-Judgment-be-Like-Richard-Swinburne-/277
Oh yeah, I also forgot about China’s sexist abortion policy.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/04/chinas-aborted-girls.html
You wrote, "It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world...That's a country that knows little or nothing about Christianity...Become an anthropologist and study their culture for a couple of years. Then come back and tell me that only Christianity can provide an objective basis for morals.A few questions if I may:
(1)How does becoming an anthropologist in China provide a basis for objective morals?
(2)How does China nt knowing anything about Christianity become a nail in the coffin of Christendom?
Thanks, Mr. Hyde
40 million Christians in China is (gasp) 3% of the population. Americans also like to judge the Chinese morals by what the Chinese government does, which does not represent the Chinese people. I would dare say that the Chinese don't commit as much crimes as a "moral" country like the US.
I'm with everyone else here. I will add only his.
If you read the Bible, and understand it, rather than projecting meaning onto it, and follow this up with the Church Fathers, who are the earliest Christians to write about what Christianity was, you will see that the claim that people cannot be moral outside of Christianity proper is not actually a Christian Argument.
The Apostle Paul actually said that all men have the law of God written on their hearts, and that men have a conscience and can know how to be moral by nature, which echoes the Gospel Narratives in which Jesus praised those outside of Judaism for their Kindness.
In Traditional Christian thought, Moral good is innate to Humanity, even though Humanity has a disposition to at in contrary ways to this good, and is derived form Natural law.
In this way, Christians often argued from common sense in the early centuries of Christianity to make their case for the moral codes they advocated.
Since the early Christians viewed morality was the product of Natural Law which one could understand by observation and in which God himself programmed us for, they taught that we should find similar moral codes in all cultures, if not Identical. They recognised cultural differences, as well as the corruption of Humanity. To them, then, some actions where clearly wrong and had to be opposed, while others where simply the product of a diffeent cultural tradition.
Augustine said Christianity was the world oldest Religion, a quote used by Christ Mythers to debunk Christianity. However, by this he only meant the general principles that undergird Christianity had existed in Humanity from the beginning. He, along with Origen, Clement, and Eusebius saw in Humanity the basis of Christendom on a more primal level, in which the life and death and resurrection of Jesus simply encapsulated the Drama, whilst his teachings remained the simple truth of a real world.
Ine coudl say that they agreed with me when I say that Christianity isn't the truth that was simply true because its Christianity, it is true in the same Sense that Science is true. Christianity is a model framewrk which exlains what we see in our lives, and accurately defined it. However, the morals, ethics, and theology are all innate and exist objectively, with Christianity merely describing the external reality to us. Much like how Relativity and the Laws of Thermodynamics aren't true in and of themselves but only relative to an external reality they explain.
So, one shoudl expect morality to exist in all Human Cultures, and to be known.
And as said above, China has the most Human Rights violation amongst the nations of the world, and has a clearly immoral Government. when this is factored into the rapidly Growing Christianity in China, a Christianity that grows int he face of severe persecution, one begins to failt o see how your point is raised.
Also, I am becoming a Psychologist. I also know I will be in Ministry. I don't see how this debunks Christianity, and have been involved in this sort of thing for a long while now.
I think your just projecting your personal frustrations and experiences onto the rest of Humanity, which is always a way to distort the picture.
Christianity will be debunked the same time ignorance and superstition are both debunked. Since the religious superstition is the default setting for the human brain, religion will never be debunk (notice, I did not say Christianity, but ALL religions in general will never be debunked).
Fact is, neither the Israelites with their local “True God” called Yahweh ever debunked the religions of the Canaanites, nor did Jesus or even Paul (as Acts has him in Athens on Mars Hill) ever debunked another religion.
Here’s a fact: The reason one religion can not debunk another religion is the same reason atheism can not debunk Christianity; there is simply nothing there to debunk, but religious superstition.
Remember, Christianity is the atheism to lets say, Hinduism in that it denies the tens of thousand of its gods and yet with ALL THE TOTALITY OF TRUTH THAT CHRTISTAINTY CALIMS IT HAS, it has never debunk a single religion (Put that in your pipe and smoke it)!Like atheism, all Christianity can hope for is to gain a convert here and there from nominal members of other religions just as a Jehovah Wittiness can convert a nominal Roman Catholic here and there.
Remember, the next time two Mormon missionaries ring your door bell; it’s time for your brand of Christianity to be DEBUNKED! Or to put it bluntly, ignorance and superstition vs. ignorance and superstition!
People seem to be getting hung up about China in particular. This is not necessary, as John was obviously just using it as an example. If you like, substitute any other, non-Christian nation in there. Put in India, or Israel, or Egypt, or Sweden, or Denmark, or Australia, or Canada, or any other country you like. Put in any country from the past, as well. How about China as it existed during the Shang dynasty? Or how about Greece during the time of Socrates? Pointing to China's "atheist government" is merely a deflection from the point of what John was trying to say.
I've done both.
It's hogwash.
Jeff, read my post earlier in this thread. My main point isn't that Chinas GOvernment is Atheistic and evil so undermines Johns point, but that the Church Fathers and Bible itself speak of Moral peole outside the Faith, because htye udnerstood CHristianity as explainign to us morals not creating them.
That said, both Australia and Canada, while having a modern Reputation for greater Secularism than the US, still both have a devoutely Christian history that is remarkabely recent, and still host a populaiton that claims to be majority Christian.
I'd fail to see htem as exampels of Non-Christian societies.
All these preachers on fire for jesus.
What I cannot understand is how come they cannot connect the time difference between Genesis 1 and all the cow and sheep and goat sacrifices and burnt offerings to atone for sins and then some 4000 years later the same god decides it's time for a human sacrifice to atone for sins.
Did the same god suddenly have a disdain for animal sacrifices and suddenly after 4000 years decided to go for Big Game..a human being?
Why is it you nutjob christians cannot fathom that intelligent human knowledge is gained by the passage of time, knowledge is not gained by the written word of a bunch of ignorant superstitious sheep and goat herders of 2000 years ago, that had no formal education that shunned and condemned scienticfic knowledge.
The majority of the people whom wrote the Bible thought that the world was flat.
They also thought that the heart, was the center of all thought and emotion.
Nowhere in the Bible is the word "brain' surely the god of all creation would have known about the human brain...pig brain..goat brain..etc?
They also thought that rainbows was a sign that the bible god would not flood the earth, we now know that rainbows are caused by the reflection of water molecules from any light source.
They also thought that diseases were caused by demons and evil spirits.
We now know with the invention of the microscope, that diseases are caused by bacteria, viruses, microbes, parasites...man made chemicals...etc.
You don't see a doctor use the Bible for a medical reference to help him diagnose a disease, unless he's a totally insane brainwashed Christian doctor, do you?
"I want to be a preacher."
Why the crap do you want to be a preacher?..Do you honestly for one second believe there is not one person in the USA that has never heard of Jesus Christ?
Is it because you yourself are so afraid of hell that you have to distroy other peoples lives and their way of thinking to come around to your dumbed-down way of thinking just so you can capture that Jewel in your Glorified Crown that Jesus has promised his followers?
Are you people so much that indulgent, that unless you can convince other people to bow down to your imaginary god, just so you can get your false praise?
Jesus was nothing but a phantom icon made up by the master of deceit of his time, the Saul/Paul two faced con-artist, and none of you christians have enough frikin common sense to recognise it.
The great Saul killed many of Christians, then on the way to Damascus he convenienly had a vision of Jesus, (the savior of all sins), then he changed his name to Paul and got instant forgiveness and is now revered as a Saint, how can anyone in their right mind be that gullibly ignorant and believe in such foolish nonsense? Murderer becomes Saint!
Mary, Paul, Peter, Jesus, John, Luke, Joseph, all no last names, none of them conventional names of that era.
Even Adam and Eve, not conventional names of their era.
Neither a god nor jesus wrote one word of the bible, why not? Because they were not as smart as the sheep and goat herders were?
This world needs to wake up and realize the Bible is nothing but a bunch of thoughts written down by people whom their world view was set at 2000 years ago and before that and past down to them through oral tradition with no evidence to support their views, with absolutely no evidence in 2009.
What's wrong with you christians?
I know it's temporary insanity, most of us have experienced it, it needs to be temporary...wake up to reality..please!
I know you can't, because mommy or daddy or the pastor, said it was all true, and they surely would not intentionaly mislead me.
Not only have you and the majority of Americans been grossly mislead, you've been badly fooled, and terribly misinformed.
Grow up, live in reality, not man made superstitious myth.
dkillman, good, become a preacher then See the inner workings of the church and watch the actual behavior of the leaders in your church. It’ll remind you of politics and the psycho wards of any town.
And to think Conor Gilliland wants to debate me even though he cannot charitably try to understand my argument but falsely mischaracterizes it.
J. K. Jones, yes Christianity is growing in parts of Asia. But for centuries it had no Christian influence at all, and at 3% it isn’t changing much, and even if so I’m sure that the Christianity in China is not like the Christianity you embrace. And when it comes to human rights do you really want to know what they think about American policies. You do realize that people around the world hate us. And surely you’ve heard about American slavery, manifest destiny, and other Christian atrocities, right?
Ahswan, not so. I’m dead serious, and although one quick small psot cannot possibily say all that I know about the subject, I can back upwhat I said.
Jesse Cohen, until the rise of a global consciousness which required Christian theologians to distance themselves from strict exclusivisim people outside of Christ were condemned. Why else have an Inquisition for a few centuries. But then that’s just like Christianity. It’s like a chameleon, ever changing its theology with the passing of time. I personally have witnessed Christian theology change in my lifetime and so I’ll predict it will keep on changing until the future Christianity will be quite far removed from what you believe now. Homosexuality will be embraced, as will universalism, and abortion rights, and Preterism, and so on and so forth. With each generation the fundamentalists keep getting smaller and smaller until in the future they will live in enclaves much like the Amish do today. See here.
Mr. Hyde, if you wonder what anthropologists know that you don’t then become one, or read David Eller’s book, Atheism Advanced, linked in our sidebar.
Pwoon, exactly!
ZAROVE, see here.
Harry McCall, thanks!
Kenn, I know what you mean.
Bently, exactly.
So where do non-Christian societies get their objective morality from? It's a good question. Firstly it should be recognised that if there is objective morality in Christian circles, then by that standard it exists in non-Christian circles. You don't see any other religion talking about subjectivism when it comes to doctrine.
So if Christians and Muslims both have objective morality AND that morality is different, then how could both have objective morality? And therein lies the answer as I see it: you don't need God for objective morality - you need the idea of God. This way a muslim can appeal to a completely fictional god in the eyes of a Christian for their objective morality while a Christian can appeal to their fictional god in the eyes of a muslim for their objective morality.
And this demonstrates above all else that morality as we see it in society can be accounted for, and no god is necessary to explain a notion of having objectives by which to act. It's the notion of God that allows for the illusion in an individual to think they are working to some sort of absolute code of conduct, just as in Islam it's to Allah and in Buddhism it's to the words of Buddha - and this is only touching on the memetic base of morality and not even on our genetic base... that's a whole other story.
But what it should show is that there is no need to account for objective morality as objective morality does not exist, just what we feel is right and wrong is completely dependant on the time and place of their birth. I wonder how many Christians would admit that what they consider objective is dependant on time and place. Consider the following few statements:
a) Women should have the same rights as men
b) Slavery is an affront to humanity
c) Racism is abhorred
d) Burning witches and torturing heretics is highly immoral
Now who here would argue that those 4 statements are objectively true? Furthermore who would argue that they are have always been objectively true, and are not simply a product of our time and place?
God and Jesus loves everybody, that's why they want to send the nonbelievers to hell, of course liars, rapist, child molesters, crooks, theives and murderers are forgiven.
But non-belief, is the only unpardonable sin.
What happened to the unconditional love?
It's conditional isn't it?
Connor, just to slightly expand on what John said to you, he was NOT stating that Christianity is debunked by virtue of his declaration.
Do you still think you fit into the category of people to whom John has issued his debate challenge, namely *qualified* Christian apologists? I grant you that the "qualified" bit is a rather slippery concept, and is open to being interpreted conveniently by John -- an issue I would like to see him address -- but I think that we can all agree that the line between qualified and unqualified should be drawn somewhere on the far side of the guy who either can't read John's arguments properly or chooses to misrepresent them.
John, the link you posted to doesn't really address my points. My argument is that the earliest Christians believed that morality emerged from Natural Law, and was thus objectively observable to all men, and that they understood further than God had written on all mens hearts a moral standard.
This understanding leads us to conclude that an objective morality exists in Humanity innately, and that Christianity merely identifies it and clarifies it.
Your link didn't really address this.
Then again, you also want to pawn off slavery and Manifest Destiny as "Christian Atrocities" as if this is even remotely plausible.
I mean, come on, slavery existed well before Christianity, and the African Slave Trade in America was largely the result of Animistic African Tribes selling their own members or members of captured tribes to each other or Europeans.
Manifest Destiny was the result of European Dominionism and was an offshoot of a Racist worldview, not really Dependant on Christian Virtues. In fact, Atheists in the late 18th and ealry 19th century largley supported Manifest Destiny, and emrbaced a Utilitarian view of it.
They aren't Christian Attrocities at all, and in fact, this thread title invovled the title "Amazing Grace", written by a former slaver named Newton who helped abolish the Slave Trade, alongside WIlberforce, in my Native England, and that on the strenght of the Wesleyan fevivals and a Strong Christian Commitment.
Where is the Logic in this, exaclty?
Okay Zarove, I see. But then you are probably arguing for a non-falsifiable position, since anything that anyone thinks is moral can be explained away as not being true morality, nor true Christian behavior, which you did just that. Let me ask you why God never did the kind deed of saying, "Thou shalt not kill witches, torture heretics nor buy beat or own slaves," and said it as often as needed so the church down through the centuries could never justify such pracitces and by doing so save a great many lives from suffering and death?
Besides, I claim to be able to account for morality better than those antequated Natural Law theories which do not meet secular ethics head on, as I argued in my book. See this.
John, the link you posted to doesn't really address my points. My argument is that the earliest Christians believed that morality emerged from Natural Law, and was thus objectively observable to all men, and that they understood further than God had written on all mens hearts a moral standard.I'm always curious about this claim because it would seem that we do have evolved moral instinct and behavioural patterns, but this is of course not the whole story. With this view, how does one account for the need for a separate explicit moral code as found in the bible? Why would Jesus have needed to come down and give a moral teaching if the code was already there? Why would we not see this code throughout all cultures and times, or even uniform within cultures?
Maybe (in all probability) I've got the wrong impression of this view, but it seems like such a view doesn't properly represent how morality works. I would agree that there is a lot internalised and coded into our genes, but it's a stretch to say it applies to every man.
Zarove,
Fact is that there are NO atheists in the Bible because the Biblical writers had no idea what an atheist was.
Christianity was just one fish swimming in a sea of religious faiths. The ancient world was explained via religion.
Christianity is only a western believe system that has itself fragmented in its struggle for power under the guise divine love and total truth.
Chinese or Russians could never have enough faith to believe in Jesus.
Just us white supremists invaders who brought along their black slaves could do that.
Andrew- uncalled for
John,
It does surprise me that you don't recognize the religious revival in China. More people worship Jesus in China than in the USA. That's why I don't think the OTF is that powerful.
And I've seen some crazy stuff as a minister, but I've also seen a lot of good stuff, too. Actually, I've seen lots of lives changed and communities transformed. I know guys who had your experience, but it just isn't universal.
Bently, check my blog soon for a response.
"If you read the Bible, and understand it, rather than projecting meaning onto it,"
Projecting meaning onto it is exactly what Christians do. Christians read the Old Testament entirely differently than Jews do.
Just look at the way theology has changed over the years, using the same Bible.
Mmh! I'm new here and amazed to find this zealous blog devouted to debunk Christianity, lol. Well, I dont understand your optimism, but as I see Christianity is firmly rooted on an unshakable foundation, Jesus Christ. He paid a very high price to establish the church and therefore it is very difficult to debunk it, and for that matter the gates of hades will not overcome it. If the church is dwindling in Europe or North America, it will thrive in China or Africa or South Korea. That is the principle of God. If these cannot yell, the stones will replace them.
Now back to this topic. I think Christianity is more than being about morality standards of this world. Anyone can be a moral person regardless of religion according if we consider the standards of morality given by the world. But Jesus shows another set of moral standards. Morality according to God. To love your enemy, to turn the other cheek and any other pacifist thing you can think of. But see no one is capable of meeting these set of moral standards, hence the need to turn to Jesus.
Kel, I'll try to explain in my response to John, but the explanation won't be thorough.
John, I'm not arguing form a non-falsifiable position at all. I also didnt say it s'Not true mroality" if ntos not Christian. By saying this you completley miss what I am saying.
It sliek Harry later saying the Bible writers had no concept of Ahtiesm and religion is hwo they explaiend their world. He seems to conflate "Religion" with "Theism", which is a common fallacy, and then endleslsy repeats false conclusions base don this mistake. (Its liek the tiresome "Faith Is Belif Without Evidence" routine...)
The actual argument is that people can be moral outside of Christianity, because Christianity didn't create the moral standards that exist within it, but simply affirmed preexisting truths extant in our world.
In other words, the reason things are moral is because of the effect they have, and living certain ways facilitates a good life. This is due, in Christian thinking, to God creating a world to work a certain way.
All Christianity does, then, is to explain those moral values. But, as I said earlier, this is like Science explaining the laws of nature. The actual principles they explain are found outside of the models we create to explain the world. The modles are simply used to express those principles so we understand them.
An this is where Kel's quesiton comes in. Christianity doens't rpesent us with an external code of conduct that exists apart from nature. It simply expresses a moral teaching about how we shoudl lead good lives in the world we live, and tells us what does and doens't work.
Remmenmber, just becuse somethign works and is benificial to us doens't mean we automaticlaly do it. Although I do think there is a morla instnct in humanity, I also think we require training ourselves to ac tin accordance t it exists. In the same way, I beleive Mathematics is taught to us, and so is the ability to properly eat, but the general instinct exists and we'd kow how to do some of these things even if never taught, they'd just not be well developed.
CHristianity then provides a framework for contextualising and expanding our awareness of those moral principles, and settign them in a way that we can understan them and develop thm more thouroughly within ourselves.
As to sayign Natural Law theories do nto take on Secular Ethics head on, they do. Thats the point, John. The "Secular Ethics" will still emrge from natural law and still be contengent upon what does and doenst work, and still be an attemto to formulate a moral and ethical system that grants the adherant a better and mroe stable life.
In that way, the Secular Religion you hodl to is not really that different from Christianity in how it functions in your life and what it does.
(It is a relgiion, Religin isnt theism, or ritual, or beleif int eh SUpernatural)
Ultimatley its still coming form the same source, and that is our observed world, and what does and doens't work.
I'll elaboratemroe later.
Oh, and Milke, Jews dont' have that radiclaly different an understandign of the Tanahk as do CHristians. It sonly certain vital passages that differ.
I'm pretty sure Jews read that Daivd commited Adultery with Batsheba, and htis was wrong, or that G-d created Adam and Eve.
Its manly a theological perspective ont he Oneness of God and the understanding of Messianic passages that differs, not the totality.
Its very simplistic to say Jews have a different understanding than do Christians about the Old Testament.
Andrew said: I have found that men who will break there vows to their wives and betray them can not be trusted in other areas of life.
Interesting. My guess is that Lord Andrew has very little experience with men "who will break there vows to their wives and betray them". I once had a preacher friend of mine tell me (upon hearing that I was now an atheist), that the atheists he has met have been some of the most miserable, unhappy people in the world, and they seem to try to bring everyone down with them. I asked him for some examples of atheists he knew. He could not answer, because he was a liar. He was exaggerating for effect.
My guess is that, on occasion, Andrew breaks the speed limit (if only by a few miles an hour), which is going back on his vows to the state when they issued him his drivers license, which makes him a liar. He can not be trusted in any area of his life. Beware!
Zarove, it is just ignorant to say secularism is a religion. Check this out. If a religion isn't defined by the belief is supernatural beings and/or forces, then by fiat you make every complete answer to the problem of existence a religion and that is winning by definition, which I object to.
I am a nonbeliever just as I am a non-stamp collector. You are a believer just like someone who is a stamp collector. You cannot define belief or stamp-collecting in such a way as to make me a stamp collector merely by definition, otherwise you make everyone a stamp collector, even those who don't collect stamps.
Bob, you comment is nonsenxe. FO oen thing, most places have an amnisty about th Speed Limit, because Speedomiters are't 100% accurate, road conditions frequently generate an artificial speed boost, and peopel often don't pay explicit attentiont o rather thye are gougn 36 miles or 35.
That said, it sahoudl also be noted that a marriage vow is very differen form a speed limit, which si applicable nly to a road, and changable. A Mariage is about a commitment to another person for life.
If you honeslty think the two confllate so tha soemone ho breaks a speed limit is the same as an adulterer in mentlaity, then you certianly have no place ot tell pothers about how inexoeurnced they are.
As ot the rest, its nrelated, but I'd agree wiht yor preacher. Most Ahteits I've met, such as yourself, do seem rather pent up and misurable, why else post such nonsense?
(By the way, thsi was also for effect, btu Im not a liar, I'm just relaly bored with these sorts of comments.)
Grow up.
Zarove, it is just ignorant to say secularism is a religion. Well, I actually said your Religion was secular, not that Secularism itself was a Religion. In the same way, Atheism isn't a Religion, but neither is THeism.
Religion is a worldview. Ultimatley all a Religon is is a framework from which we understand the world aroudn us. Ther eis no sdifference between a Secular Humanist and a Christian in their beleifs in how those beleifs funciton in the adherants life. SOmehow, though, I'm suppsoe to see the Christian as Religious and the Humanist as non-Religious, which is just not posisble for me since I don't see the distinction.
Your not relaly arguing agaisnt Religion, just for your own, new Religious beleifs, which are every bit the same as Christian beleifs or buddhist beleifs in how they operate in your life.
When debatign the veracity of a Religiosu claim, we hsoudln't lable it relgiona nd laod the word Religion with a lot of negative baggage, as if osmehow your arugign agisnt Reliion itself, because thay doesn't do anythign btu obscure the matter at hand.
Check this out.Wow. WIkpedia. I'm impressed. The worlds most accurate and trusted soruce of informaiton.
By the way, the article on Religion foudn on Wikipeida doens't dispute my point, so its worthless even if I did take it as an authority.
If a religion isn't defined by the belief is supernatural beings and/or forces, then by fiat you make every complete answer to the problem of existence a religion and that is winning by definition, which I object to. I don't care if you object to it. The truth is, recent brain studies and years of Philosophical research have already shown that Religion is neither dependant upon the SUpernatural (If it where, then I woudln't be Religiosu as I don't beleive in the SUpernatural, yet Im a CHristian and everyone says Im religious) nor is it some sort of seperate category of thought independant of Secular philosophies. Since Religion exists to provide a context for our expernces and supply us with a mean of understabnding them and infusing them with meaning, I donm't see why your Secular Philosophy shoudl be excluded from the word "Religion" other than your esire ot make "Religion' into a negative force and combat it.
The only real reason you oppose this deifnition, I suspect, is for the same reaosn a awkisn Dronw would; because if you admit yours is a Relgiion a good many of your arugments about how evil Religion is, and how bad it is for religiosn to war wiht each other, become hypocritical.
Still, Chfistians do not have a seperate categorical box in their midns lable d"CHristianity" from which they view the world that you secular, non-religiosu peopel lack, and in truth the mechanisms of thoguht are the same. The classificaitn of Relgion as somehtign different form a comptrehensive owrldivew is worthless in regards ot actulaly explainign what it is.
I am a nonbeliever just as I am a non-stamp collector. Your not a Non-Beleiver though John. You spacificlaly a non-beleive rin some claims, but not everyhting, and you have expressed beleifs about other htings. In fact, even your non-beleif is ultimaltey a beleif in something.
On a larger scale, the word Beleiver and the word Non-beleiver are both relative to propositions, and not really relevant here.
You still hve a Religion, just as everyone else does, as Religion is foundaitonal to Human THinking. Your simply no longer a Christian.
There is a difference.
You are a believer just like someone who is a stamp collector.I'm also a non-beleiver, John. I do nopt beleive in your ahtiestic propositions. I do not beelive in your arugments about mroal relativity. I do not beelive in the Pagan arrallels theiss. I do not beleive in a lot of things...
Your point is rather moot.
We both have beelivfs and disbeleifs, but the sum of our beelifs constitute a worldview that, althoguh different in ehat they teach us and guide us, and in the htoguths htey tend to formulate, still funciton to allow us to make sense of our world, and in that regard we are the same. By tryign to artificially divide yourself orm Religiosu peoel as if soemhow your thogths differ from theirs in that you have no Religion, you create a schism in thoguth that orevents a true engagement with the ideas.
You cannot define belief or stamp-collecting in such a way as to make me a stamp collector merely by definition, otherwise you make everyone a stamp collector, even those who don't collect stamps.We're not tlakign abotu STamp COlleting, tough, we're talkign about the fundamental rudements of human thought. Unless you have absolutely no mechansim for understandign your world and no way of contecxtualisig the events in yur life and supplyign them with an understandign of what they mean for you, then you do in fact have a Religion. In the same way you have a culture, an ethnic background (DIsrinct form actual race) and a personal identity.
Religion is foundaitonal, and everyone has one.
John,
I know there have been other comments like this, but the point remains Christian theology holds to the universal recognition of moral values and duties.
Non-believers benefit from God's grace and suffer in the fallen world like everyone else. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.
BTW, I feel you on this! This issue kept me awake at night for days when I was in high school. I was performing in Fiddler on the Roof, and I couldn't imagine God letting precious people like those depicted in the play perish.
You know the answers. God's not willing that any should perish, and his grace extends to every person to draw us freely into relationship with himself.
Anyone who claims that God ignores or does not extend grace to every person has a huge burden of proof.
"Anyone who claims that God ignores or does not extend grace to every person has a huge burden of proof."
I just wanted to isolate that phrase and soak in its incoherence.
John,
You didn't answer my question:
"How does becoming an anthropologist in China provide a basis for objective morals?"Your answer:
"Mr. Hyde, if you wonder what anthropologists know that you don’t then become one, or read David Eller’s book, Atheism Advanced, linked in our sidebar."I don't care about what an anthropologist knows, I wanted you to explain how an anthropologists knowledge leads to objective moral values in China?
Steven Bentley,
You made far too many claims to address all of them, but you made a couple that I would like to address. You wrote, "The majority of the people whom wrote the Bible thought that the world was flat."Were did you get that information?
Then you wrote,"They also thought that the heart, was the center of all thought and emotion. Nowhere in the Bible is the word "brain' surely the god of all creation would have known about the human brain...pig brain..goat brain..etc?"What follows? How does that show that the people of the Bible were ignorant? We still speak of the heart in this manner (my head tells me to do this but my heart says not, for example). Simply because brain is not used does not make them stupid does it? The word computer is not in the Bible either, but that doesn't make them stupid.
Then you wrote in another comment, "God and Jesus loves everybody, that's why they want to send the nonbelievers to hell, of course liars, rapist, child molesters, crooks, theives and murderers are forgiven. But non-belief, is the only unpardonable sin. What happened to the unconditional love? It's conditional isn't it?"Does our justice system send people to jail? or do the people who commit the acts send themselves to jail?
And it's idiotic blog posts like this that are the reason that John is getting slapped upside the head by Christians and skeptics alike.
"These people get along just fine without Christianity" isn't an argument against any more than "These people get along just fine without a belief in evolution" is an argument against evolution. The question is not "Is this world view beneficial?" but "Is this world view true?" which is a question that John regularly fails to address.
Sorry, Johnny boy, but we're laughing at you, not with you. :)
Darren, some people are not laughing but reading with interest. We think your faith is idiotic, just as Buddhists and Hindu's and Muslims do, and we're laughing at you, contantly. Even liberal Christians shake their heads in amazement at you, as do many Catholics, and while we're at it, snake handlers and Fred Phelps type Christians. Your evangelical inerrant faith is in a minority when compared world-wide. And so the overwhelming majority laugh at backward people like you. So please put this into perspective.
Remember this, no single post of mine can possible deal with all of the objections you can put forth. It's a lengthy discussion. I think I've dealt with most of your objections in my book where I present a cumulative case against your faith.
And Darren, you remind me of one insane person telling another insane person that he is okay. And he responds that the other one is okay as well. And they laugh at all of the sane people out there who tell them they are both insane.
If you call this post an argument, then defeating you in a debate will be easier than I expected.
Connor, place everything into context with what I wrote in my book, okay? I don't think you've read it, and I don't think you can handle it. But then without doing so you can say whatever you want to about an observation I made while watching a show last night. It's all about "seeing" things differently. In my book I share why I see things differently, okay?
Andrew said: "Mike, if theology has changed, using the SAME bible, where is the VARIABLE?
Not in the Bible, because it is the same bible."
That's my point. Men have always decided what the Bible means. they have projected the meaning, atheists tend to take it at it's word.
On another note entirely, my security word right now is "spong". ;-)
ZAROVE, do you see a lot of Jews seeing Jesus in the Old Testament? I think not. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
Mike...
ZAROVE, do you see a lot of Jews seeing Jesus in the Old Testament? I think not. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.Woudln't this be the Messianic interpetation I alreayd mentioned?
The Messianic hope , and interpretation of Biblical prophecies, do notcosntitute, and have nevr been, the sole udnerstandign of the Old Testament by CHristians.
Christians and Jews agree on most of the Old Testament, they just disagre eon some aspects.
That doens't mean a heck of a lot though, since htye still both apply the same underlyign theme, and agree on that. FOr exmaople, that tere is one God, and that he gave the law of Moses.
your just nitpicking now.
Much ike John is when he makes his arugment.
Spekaign of which...
John, I've met Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus. Some may laugh at CHristians, btu not all do. Do you relaly buy into the claim tjat all Religious peopel think everyone sles religion is silly and absurd but their own? Thats not bedn my expeince. I don't think Buddhists are all idiots and Buddhism makes no snese and is irraitonal. I don't lauhg at Muslims.
Nor do they tend ot laugh at me.
So your claim her eis just hype.
I'm not syaing none of them do, but in genrral peole dont go abotu tlakign abotu how absurd everyone elses Religion is.
Post a Comment