Taking Sides: Atheism vs. Christianity

oh.

ohhh.

ohhhhhh.... oh... *shudder* ...my... *twitch* ....OHHHHHHH.... OHHHHHH... *shake*rattle* ...MYYYYYYYYYY... g-g-g-g-g-g-g-Bone-ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

:-)

I think it could work for me.

that said, you can be an idealistic agnostic and practicing atheist (that's what i am); i don't know if there's a god, but i don't behave as if there is.

100% OTM. I've felt this way for a long time.

I like that!

Truly, I don't know. This question of god is a big one, and I think I'd rather wrestle with it than not. So far in my "is there a god vein?" I've decided the personification of deity thing that we've done so far isn't god. Right now, my god concept sort of hovers somewhere around "I am/We are" but that could change.

Also, I'm really not the least bit interested in having my god kick the ass of anybody else's god, or non-god.

last weekend my aunt told me maybe i believe in "a non-theistic conception of god." i'm still confused by that.

Are saying God as a physical being didn't use a hand and write it. That is true, but It says in 2 Timothy "All scripture is God-breathed" and many other places the Bible is called God's word

Using reason and not faith (which wouldn't mean anything) my explination why this isn't true is that the Bible has prophecies that point to later parts in the Bible.

Kiwi, don't you have other friends around who can make your arguments more persuasively?

Look I can happily trundle out a few thousand words of my own thoughts on aspects of religion. Take the question at hand earlier about evidence for son of God, I dont have blind faith alone, but I marvel at those who do.

Some of my faith will be based on philosophy, especially extrasensory truths or transemperical , you know man is not just an object, but also man in himself(man as a person).
Some on Old testament predictions that have been fufilled, and far too accurate to be be flukes for me.
Some on the amazing historical detail and accuracy of the New Testament, especially Luke. Athethist scholars marvel at the accuracy and detail in his writing. Some on physical historical evidence.
None of which by itself proves anything, but pieced all together gives me a solid base to believe in the word of God.

I have said before I acknowledge mysteries as such, you know full well there are things you cannot explain in life.I believe humans are spiritual and I believe in Christ as an explanation for these mysteries. As stupid as you take me for, and Im pretty thick, I dont think you calling my religion "irredeemably awful" gets us anywhere. So I dont engage you in your assertions, I can see drawn out debates on nature and human instinct and alpha males etc relating to organised religion yet alone Peter getting the keys and the rock and more scripture and papl history... we are so far apart I dont see much hope for understanding.

Im rambling I need to go to sleep. God Bless :)

I love the idea of suzy hacking her way through the rainforest to investigate one more religion before being disappointed for the last time.

there seems a fundamental difference in these 2 formulations for me. i think the latter makes more sense, i mean i don't believe in german speaking pigeons, but i'm not a believer in *No german speaking pigeons* if you see what i mean...

2. whether religion is silly or not doesnt seem hugely relevant. as long as it doesnt impinge on other peoples freedoms then fine.

3. why *vs christianity*?. why not christianity vs islam or hinduism? i had an interesting discussion with a religious (non-organized) person earlier this year. i believed christianity should not be taught in schools, and that people should make their own decision outside of school. they said not teaching them it is as prejudicial to their opinion as teaching it would be. quite a good point, but then, why christianity and not islam? why choose one over another (and then, which branch?) unless you're going to teach them all? but then how many? and they all have claims on the *truth*, whatever that is

I have gone to church for most of my life but I have started to question it. along with everything else. and now I am this cynical wreck you see before you very phoneline.

I'd also say that if followers of a specific religion are rendered misguided, it's because of the falseness of their belief, and doesn't have much to do with ANY form of atheism or agnosticism.

I don't see any particular problem with this. Moreover, in my experience, it is always the 'weak' atheists who suffer from the failings that Dan was so OTM about earlier. Not that all 'weak' athesits do, mind you, but I think those who try to justify their atheism via purely rational means are more susceptible to coming off like know-it-all assholes.

"Organised religion" historically has been awful and useful - in a pre-democratic society the opposition of secular and non-secular authority provided the same kind of braking mechanism party systems do now - the church could serve as an 'opposition' to political leaders and vice versa. In a democratic society I can definitely see a place for "religion" on an individual basis but not the organisations that sprung up around it.

Its not a belief system. Hence, B).

>>3. why *vs christianity*?.<<

Eurocentric question. Really, it should be "Atheism vs. Theism". After all, there are religions in which there is no god (IE, Buddhism).

-
Alan

That's just wrong.

I suppose the word Religion can be a bit loaded in some peoples minds. I'd say that as a social entity it clearly does need other people, but as a spiritual one, it clearly doesn't.

If they had hunted Christians down to one guy hiding in the woods, praying daily and subsiding on roots and berries, would it still be religion? I'd say yes. Maybe not A Religion (checkbox in the census form), though.

http://www.lawrence.edu/fac/boardmaw/god_in_quad_berkeley.html

Prayer would seem to me to be something you can do by yourself, apart from god(s), and is fairly crucial to the whole endeavour. But that's a Catholic perspective. Are there other religions where you can't do something holy by yourself, by scripture rather than practice?

This depends on the strength of the agnosticism. "I don't know if God exists" is just a statement, as undeniable as "The sun is shining". Which is not as undeniable as 2+2=4, but that's another ballgame.

But "there is no way of knowing whether god exists" is like "The sun will come up tomorrow, because science says" or "The sun will come up tomorrow, thanks to Ra". You can build consistent world views around it, but it is clearly just a belief. It's a positive statement, and can't be proved right, just wrong.

Hrm. Guess who just read a book on Wittgenstein vs Popper, and thinks he knows the secrets of the ages?

hurhurhur.

Oh, I picked Atheism vs. Christianity because a few previous threads were discussing it, and Christianity has more cultural significants around here. Also, I was interested in others view of Christianity specifically.
And I totally agree that public schools should have a world religion class. I would have loved to have anything other than American history in high school (I hardly had any social studies in school other than American history, it sucked.)

and as for Tom's explination of his atheism,

"I'm with J. Religion shifts the argument into a non-rational sphere with the introduction of the concept of 'faith' and I'm happy to enter that sphere. I have no faith, indeed I have a felt absence of faith, therefore I am an atheist."

I think that is a great explination. For me, who believes in predestination of man, Tom would be an example of someone who is seemingly not predestined.

Well, I'm not sure it's so minor. I think I recall with Mitt Romney, he defended his low tax-payments because he payed tither and gave to mormon charities, who for instance used that money to fight against gay marriage. With the way 'religious freedom' is used in the US at this moment, I think it's ok to stop and wonder whether it's really ipso facto charitable to support.

I'm christian, btw, and most atheists I know seem to think they are twice as intelligent as they really are. But still.

I am not angry about it, just think in the context of "Atheism vs. Christianity" thread, perhaps atheists would be better off debating how US law continually benefits religious charities rather than debating philosophy or metaphysics. I have given to a church charity this year, I think it is awesome that churches do charity, and think it makes the world a better place.

But in the context of this thread, which is about the public debate between atheism and Christianity, I wish the very real laws and effects of those laws were debated over things that happened centuries or millenia ago.

It is also not a minor issue. 100% of US presidents have been Christian, a vast majority of the congressional lawmaking body have been Christian, and most authority figures in general have been in the US. They are creating public policy that effects everyone, not just Christians. Those policies are often biased in their favor. Look at the recent attacks on birth control, women's reproductive rights, gay marriage, etc. Look at US military policy, which is heavily fixated on a very particular religious group.

When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

They estimate (in 2013) that churches get $85 billion a year in these subsidies. Churches own $600 billion worth of real estate they do not pay taxes on.

The church is the largest single charitable organisation in the country. Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010, of which 62% came from local, state and federal government agencies.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

That means $1.7 billion of the church's own money was given to charity. Roughly 2 percent of the national subsidy they receive from taxpayers was given to the poor. Churches do not have to report their income so there is no real way of knowing how much they take in in addition to government subsidies. The amount is likely much lower than that.

just think in the context of "Atheism vs. Christianity" thread, perhaps atheists would be better off debating how US law continually benefits religious charities rather than debating philosophy or metaphysics

They do. You're welcome.

it would be nice if for instance you got free rent and utilities if you ran a food bank

Yea, verily, hath not our toll been paid back tenfold when the Lord commandeth we make food, not bombes?

I thought this was a q of charities/ventures run by religious groups rather than religious institutions donating money, which seems less complicated

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/number-of-muslims-worldwide-expected-to-nearly-equal-number-of-christians-by-2050-religiously-unaffiliated-will-make-up-declining-share-of-worlds-population/

With the exception of Buddhists, all of the world’s major religious groups are poised for at least some growth in absolute numbers in the coming decades. Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though also increasing in absolute numbers – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

sorry atheists :(

ffffffuck.

time for richard dawkins to launch a quiverfull campaign and get duggar-size broods of atheist families firing out kids at every opportunity

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 1h1 hour ago

The #fuckforscience campaign begins here! #barebackin'

really? I"d heard religious affiliations were shrinking worldwide. hmm.

we know that high quality of modern living standards correlate to lowered birth rates and vice-versa so it's not really surprising

pewforum