How I See Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2012, 06:20 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 03:46 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(29-12-2012 03:18 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Also why should I take the punishment of another persons crime? What person would actually think this moral? I think that mentality is disgusting and is simply primative way to explain pain and suffering.

I never saw it like I was taking the punishment of someone elses crimee. I saw it like Adam and Eve represented all of mankind in that we all would have made the same decision given the same exact circumstances.
I could say, I am taking the punishment for something I would do if given the chance.
Hey, lets crank the breaks on for a second, right?

Can we have a vote of no confidence? I mean if we've fictional characters as the representatives of our race&species, I think I'd like to have a say in that.

If we cannot vote on it, I will alternatively accept my consciousness being placed in a well looked after, young Galapagos tortoise.

[Image: peacock-spider-dance-o.gif]
The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 08:34 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 05:49 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Creationism as a hypothesis seems quite accurate in description. I don't think I've been able to remember the term 'hypothesis' in my personal explanations of it. Looking up the definition, it seems like that's exactly what Creationism is right now, for me anyways. It is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Further investigation is pretty much what we are all in lol.
But as I've said in other threads, we can all take one side more so that the other if we're given enough convincing evidence to push us in that direction.
I guess I've been pushed slightly in the direction of Creationism and am still in the investigative process.
Whether or not the evidence for a hypothesis is convincing has no effect on its validity; it either supports the hypothesis, or it doesn't. With that said, in the case of Creationism, we don't have any evidence to begin with. It cannot even be considered a scientific hypothesis per se because it makes no testable predictions and because it is neither falsifiable nor verifiable.

(29-12-2012 05:49 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I have not gone through that material in order to make an inference yet.
You may be unconvinced by the evidence (or as you say "lack of evidence"), but I may be quite convinced by it.
I am very aware that even completely convincing evidence can be misconstrued and/or misrepresented by the human mind and then thrown out with the trash even though it was valid.
I have to actually investigate the evidence myself and make the decision. Also, I can't go off of things that are non-sequitors like God being an evil sadist = He does not exist (It just does not follow).

I know this makes me look like a difficult person, but I want to see everything available. If I see all that is available to me, I will try and make a decision - and then if more is available, I test that in light of everything else and see if that new information changes my decision.
I have not gone through all the material available to me yet, but I've gone through a lot and have made what may possibly be a temporary decision based on what I know right now.
As I've said above, whether or not the evidence is convincing is completely irrelevant and it's really not all that difficult to examine. Either the argument's premises are factually correct, or they aren't. Either the conclusion follows logically from the given premises, or it doesn't. There is no argument for the existence of a higher power that I know of that fulfills both of these necessities. Really all the material that one can work with in the case of philosophical evidence for the existence of a higher power is a relatively short list of philosophical arguments.

I assume that you are already familiar with the most famous arguments for the existence of god, so I want you to take a look at the index of this article and tell me which one of these arguments you think is valid.

(29-12-2012 05:49 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  By definition, an Agnostic is done with their research. They believe that nothing can be known about God essentially. If I considered myself an agnostic, my research is over. I will go back to work and forget this all happened.
I'm not sure if I would be an Agnostic or an Atheist first. I find it highly unlikely that I would come to the conclusion that I cannot know anything about God. It seems like it's possible.
I would likely become an Atheist first, but who knows.
Not necessarily. Much like with theism and atheism, the philosophical position "agnosticism" has different variations. Wikipedia explains the particular variation called "weak agnosticism" very well.

Wikipedia Wrote:Weak agnosticism is the assertion that, at present, there is not enough information to know whether any deities exist, or that no one has publicly and conclusively proven that such deities exist, but that such might become knowable, or that someone may come forward with a conclusive and irrefutable proof for the existence of such deities. It is in contrast to strong agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of any gods is completely unknowable to humanity. Neither type of agnosticism is fully irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities) nor atheism (rejecting belief in all deities). Weak agnostics who also consider themselves theists are likely to acknowledge they have some doubt, though they are not necessarily having a crisis of faith. Weak agnosticism is compatible with weak atheism, as weak atheists also do not assert that it is false that any deities exist. Weak agnosticism is also referred to as empirical agnosticism and as negative agnosticism.

According to Graham Oppy, weak agnosticism is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-12-2012, 12:03 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2012 12:07 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: How I See Christianity
The underlying logical fallacy behind the consumption of the "forbidden fruit" is that we must, according to scripture and theology, believe that Adam and Eve were born without sin (and that, because the world was created prior to the existence of sin, there was no evil in the world). How, then, would Adam and Eve come close to understanding what is wrong with the forbidden fruit? Because God told them not to do so? Then God effectively introduced the role of sin, by implying there is something wrong with devouring the fruit of knowledge.

Then one must ask: If the sole premise to Christianity is original sin, and it is fundamentally proven wrong, is it more logical to assume that it is simply a fairy tale or that there's another, more metaphoric meaning (despite it being interpreted literally for over a thousand years)?

It is like the equivalent early hominids communicating to each other that they should implement the wheel, despite it not existing.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
29-12-2012, 12:13 PM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 12:03 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The underlying logical fallacy behind the consumption of the "forbidden fruit" is that we must, according to scripture and theology, believe that Adam and Eve were born without sin (and that, because the world was created prior to the existence of sin, there was no evil in the world). How, then, would Adam and Eve come close to understanding what is wrong with the forbidden fruit? Because God told them not to do so? Then God effectively introduced the role of sin, by implying there is something wrong with devouring the fruit of knowledge.

Then one must ask: If the sole premise to Christianity is original sin, and it is fundamentally proven wrong, is it more logical to assume that it is simply a fairy tale or that there's another, more metaphoric meaning (despite it being interpreted literally for over a thousand years)?

It is like the equivalent early hominids communicating to each other that they should implement the wheel, despite it not existing.

This has always been my issue with the forbidden fruit argument. Thank you!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2012 02:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How I See Christianity
This video/view is seriously disturbed. It reeks of a Psych disturbance. The bullshit of "being born in sin", is a seriously disturbed personality. It reeks of poor self-esteem.

It's also philosophical crap, as it implies that the nature of Reality is not subject to a creator, and Jebus HAD to supposedly do the "salvation" thingy. Everything about it is 100 % bullshit. Whoever make this, and subscribes to it need a mental health professional. I'll be back later to rip it up section by section. But it's REALLY scary. Someone needs medication. Seriously.

Obviously IOS is not going to convert anyone here. So the question remains : "What is he doing here ?
Obviously he wants someone to convince him that this is all crap. I suspect the person who will do that is himself, AFTER he achieves a measure of sanity, and self-esteem.

I always thought this crap of fundamentalism is about Psychology, and not Theology or historical facts, or anything else. It's about a disturbed personality.

Edit :
So I watched this bizarre little Christian late-night infomercial, (worse than QVC), trying to sell me on the salvation paradigm.
Problem is, it's all nonsense.
1. Jesus never said a word about it. It's absent in Mark. Paul cooked it up, and added the Zoroastrian "purification" idea he got from Mithraism, (in Tarsus), which is far different from the Hebrew "atonement" concept, from the culture Jebus lived in. One is personal, one is cosmic. So we know whatever Jebus was about, it could not have been this, as the idea was foreign to his culture. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection
2. There was no immortality in Hebrew culture, so "saving souls", simply makes no sense.
3. "Born in sin" was further expounded by the next guilt-ridden "Christian Father", named Augustine. He took Paul's salvation, and drove it off the cliff, and made high art of it, as he led such a bad life when he was young, he absolutely detested himself. He also, (just as Paul), had a complex about sex. He saw humanity as flawed, and he got it to stick in the culture of the early church. He was a "sicko". Just read his books. They are apalling.
4. The concept of "legalism" as I mentioned above, implies a creator, and his son are subject to a set of laws in the universe, which supposedly, they created. Nonsense. If he knew humans would be "flawed", (or didn't know), he is either not omniscient, or not a good creator. As don't even start with the "free will" crap. Its debunked by Cognitive Neuro-science. We always maximize, at any given moment what we perceive to be is our greatest good, at that time. It may not always be a wise "maximization", but it's all there is in our consciousness, at the moment. Many of the elements of "choice" are not even "present" to consciousness", so "free will" is crapola.
5. The Genesis creation/fall stories came from Babylon, and they knew nothing about Anthroplology that we don't now, and in fact knew FAR FAR less. They had no clue about "primordial" man. There is also not a shred of evidence that there once existed on this planet EVER, a state of "perfection" Dinosaurs got cancer. Human DNA is traceable. It was never any different. Evolution explains all the questions about human "imperfections". No god need be invoked.
6. As far as the "god died" crap .. where to start.
a. A "divine being" in Hebrew culture was in no way equivalent to Yahweh. Jebus being one of his many many sons, in no way equates to him being the "only begotten one". That was cooked up later in the councils. You can read the procedings of the councils, and listen to the old men fabricate the shit.
b. If god "died", and somehow "changed" his attitude towards humans AFTER a "sacrifice", it means he is subject to spacetime. That is ludicrous, if he is a creator god.

So, in summary, the video lacks any fundamental Biblical support, or Philosophical support. It's an informercial for an ancient self-depricating thought system cooked up by sick personalities who had never experienced real personal satisfaction, or an integrated personality, and sought to explain the Human Condition in 2000 year-old terms, when there are FAR better ways of thinking about things today. It's ignorance at it's finest.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-12-2012, 12:28 PM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 12:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This video/view is seriously disturbed. It reeks of a Psych disturbance. The bullshit of "being born in sin", is a seriously disturbed personality. It reeks of poor self-esteem.

It's also philosophical crap, as it implies that the nature of Reality is not subject to a creator, and Jebus HAD to supposedly do the "salvation" thingy. Everything about is is 100 % bullshit. Whoever make this, and subscribes to it need a mental health professional. I'll be back later to rip it up section by section. But it's REALLY scary. Someone need medication. Seriously.

Obviously IOS is not going to convert anyone here. So the question remains : "What is he doing here ?
Obviously he wants someone to convince him that this is all crap. I suspect the person who will do that is himself, AFTER he achieves a measure of sanity, and self-esteem.

I always thought this crap of fundamentalism is about Psychology, and not Theology or Historical facts, or anything else. It's about a disturbed personality.


Like KC? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 12:53 PM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 12:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This video/view is seriously disturbed. It reeks of a Psych disturbance. The bullshit of "being born in sin", is a seriously disturbed personality. It reeks of poor self-esteem.

It's also philosophical crap, as it implies that the nature of Reality is not subject to a creator, and Jebus HAD to supposedly do the "salvation" thingy. Everything about is is 100 % bullshit. Whoever make this, and subscribes to it need a mental health professional. I'll be back later to rip it up section by section. But it's REALLY scary. Someone need medication. Seriously.

Obviously IOS is not going to convert anyone here. So the question remains : "What is he doing here ?
Obviously he wants someone to convince him that this is all crap. I suspect the person who will do that is himself, AFTER he achieves a measure of sanity, and self-esteem.

I always thought this crap of fundamentalism is about Psychology, and not Theology or Historical facts, or anything else. It's about a disturbed personality.

I have family members that argue that Jehovah Witness, Mormons and other religions are nothing more than cults. Others except for their religion. It is more physlogical than theocracy....I think they actively look for those kinds of people under the guise of giving their life sanction and purpose. It's sad really.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
29-12-2012, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2012 06:12 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: How I See Christianity
Paul, two people should never represent the Whole of mankind. That's fucking stupid. How the hell can two people represent people who might have been born with different ways of thinking.

Currently I am not arguing Gods non-existence. I am not making any claim of that sort yet.

As for the consequence part, did God explain to them what death was? Did he explain the other side effects like childbirth?

I think that you need to prove that his ways transcend ours even if he did exist. You are simply spouting something that can t be proven.

As for the creation accounts, how about you read the Bible instead of picking out verses.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2012 07:34 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 02:29 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  How I see the struggle of mankind in this world in relation to what is claimed in Christianity is bit like what is depicted in this Youtube video.

I'm fully aware that I'm posting this in an Atheist Forum. I'm just sharing something that sort of reflects my views on the matter.
I may not agree with everything that this person believes, but I still resonate with most of the video.



Hi IOS, I've watched the video. Nothing new there.

It starts by telling me I'm a sinner. I say BULLSHIT. The narrator doesn't know me from Adam. I like myself. He then tells me Christ has taken on my punishment. I say BULLSHIT. No rational person can accept this. This was made up by Saint Paul. Here's how and why. (apologies to those who've read this before)

Christ’s Sacrificial Death


Paul invented the concept that Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Plenty of people have since accepted
this peculiar idea. Why?


Having the son of God become human and free the faithful from the guilt and consequences of their sins was an attractive story for a credulous congregation. It meant God was no longer a distant deity, but someone more like them, with whom they could identify. Christ became an ally, a great guy, and everyone’s best friend. He would personally shoulder your punishment, provided you believed in him. Do that, and Paul promised you a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with this plan; Christians today rarely question it. This is why many of them harp on about the necessity of believing in Jesus; so that sins can be forgiven and entry into heaven attained.


Yet the argument is irrational. Why would the son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that punishes a scapegoat? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why would a god care less about the pathetic performance of his own imperfect creation? Why should we agree with Paul’s delusions about sin? (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/...atonement/ )



Sin


Most people consider sin a deliberate act that results in harm, usually to another person. Yet Paul claimed sin can be
something one’s born with, like a birth defect. This is a dim-witted idea, as a baby can’t cause harm, so can’t sin. This concept of “original sin,” as further articulated by Tertullian of Carthage (AD 150-225) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE),is a nasty notion. People are told they’re basically bad - because they were born. It makes them dislike themselves, which churches know is good for business.


If, for the sake of argument, we accept the (rather odd) assumption that our behavior can offend God, surely this God didn’t need Jesus’ death to forgive. He could be benevolent and simply say “you’re genuinely sorry, so I forgive you.” Paul, however, didn’t believe in a benevolent God, but thought of him as a rigid character who demanded a sacrifice.


Paul misunderstood the real problem with immoral behavior (what he called sin.) The real sting of sin is that it harms our fellow humans, or sometimes the perpetrator himself. It should be the victim who does the forgiving, because he’s vindicated, maybe compensated, and the perpetrator usually promises not to repeat the offense. The guilty learn from
their mistakes, and society benefits. Paul bypassed this reparative process by professing that sin was forgiven by having faith in Christ, an unrelated third party. The perpetrator may not be genuinely repentant, the victim is uncompensated, and a repeat offense likely. So to pass on the responsibility of dealing with sin by having faith in Jesus is deplorable.


In turning Christ’s death into a sacrifice that saves souls, Paul sacrificed common sense. He promoted a shame-based, fear-based belief that degrades interpersonal relationships.


IOS, Jesus (Yeshua), if he ever existed, was a run of the mill dude like you or me. He was pissed off that Romans were exploiting poor Jews in Galilee. They didn't like his attitude, so they knocked him off. So Yeshua didn't have his head up in his own arse by sacrificing himself so people could get a free ticket to heaven. Bring your thinking back down to planet earth. Your namesake (Paul) has been playing with your head.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2013, 11:54 PM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 02:29 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  How I see the struggle of mankind in this world in relation to what is claimed in Christianity is bit like what is depicted in this Youtube video.

I'm fully aware that I'm posting this in an Atheist Forum. I'm just sharing something that sort of reflects my views on the matter.
I may not agree with everything that this person believes, but I still resonate with most of the video.





Ok, so let me get this straight. We are all born with a defect that makes us evil or "born in sin"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was born with no memories of anything. Just the insticts I was born with to suck on things (food) and of course no control of anything. I am pretty certain you and everyone else was born just the same. How the hell can someone that was just born be evil? How can they be anything at all, other than an eating, sleeping, shit machine? Until we are taught by the church (any/every church), to feel dirty. Explain this to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: