NationStates Jolt Archive

So many people here seem to have such great problems with religion and what it is and what it stands for (In particular Christianity) and I was wondering precisely what problems people have with it and why they have them. Also, I have observed that many people (interlecutauals mostly) seem to have this idea that the belief in God is absurd due to a lack of proof. However they fail to see that there is also a lack of proof that God does not exist, so how is there standpoint any diffrent. "God exists" is a statement that cannot be certianly proven or disproven so why are so many people so quick to claim "God doesnt exist there is no proof" when there is no proof for their viewpoint either. So in short I would like to know

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

My problems with Christianity are that some of them are constantly trying to convert others, they want their beleifs codified into law, and they have a habit of using pseudoscience to back up their creation myth. I know that doesn't apply to all Christians, but it applies to enough of them to sour my opinion.

I think the position that god doesn't exist is more rational because there's no real evidence to back up the position that he does. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Granted that's just my position, but you asked.

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

1. seems to produce more ignorant assholes. This does not apply to all Christians, but it does apply to 19/20 where I live (Bible Belt).

2. I don't. But the stance of not believing in God (there is a difference) IS more stable.

I don't have a problem with people of any religion Neo, but many seem to have a problem with me and my Athiesm.
When you tell a Christian your an Athiest, lots of them recoil in horror or try to convert you (even my own wife and mother are guilty of this).

Many Christians seem to take the view that if your a non believer you must be evil incarnate or need to be saved!

Christians are by no means the worst though.
Mornons and Jehova's witnesses think they are within their rights to harrass you at home.

Coz it is so bludy mad! :gundge:





I AM SO FLIPPING EVIL!

People just don't like having restrictions put on their lives.

It's not christianity, its the christians.

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

1) its not the belief but the implementation that most people have a problem with. in general, jesus preached things that one can either go with or not without hating the notions (as in, nice thought but its not my cup of tea) but the institutional churches are so far off from the teachings of jesus as to be almost unrecognizable as being spawn from the same man.

2) for me its the utter lack of evidence of god's existance, especially in the here and now, that makes atheism a more stable stance. (including the lack of evidence that any belief or disbelief in him changes anything in the real world)

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?


1) I have a problem with anyone trying to assert their religion on me as if they have the right to. I also have a problem with extremists who try to invalidate me as a human being with rights to live as I feel just because I'm a female who likes other females. Christian fundimentalists are guilty of these things.

I don't have a problem with Christianity itself. I just have a problem with the Christians who use their religion as an excuse to hate and force their self-righteous morality on people who couldn't give a crap.

2) Athiests don't believe in God because they don't see proof of that a god even exists. That being said, I'm pagan so I don't even believe in the same god Christians do; I worship my own gods.

Personnally, I just don't like stupid people, but consciously I don't
like the Christian Organization enforcing their will upon nonbelievers.
While effectively there is a freedom of religion in the American
constitution they neglected to create a freedom from it - the same
thing can be said for the intrusive media.

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

1) The only problems I have with Christianity are the sacrifice of logic that often goes along with religion in general and the consistent hypocracy and judgemental attitudes exhibited by some of its members.

My problem in the first part, is that if there is a (g)G(_)(o)d(dess)(s)(es) out there, and he/she/it/they created us the way we are (with logic and reason), I find it very hard to accept that he/she/it/they would not want us to use them.

My problem in the second part is that the Patriarch of the philosophy (the big JC), was a very contrarian individual who obviously despised religion and had a very big problem with hypocracy and judgemental attitudes. It therefore doubles the vitriolic response I get normally when I see these attitudes from Christians in particular because not only are they immoral in their own right, but they directly conflict with the desires and philosophy of the man they call God.

2) Because only a very small number of incidents that negatively impacted the world have happened because of a lack of belief in a Deity. People don't seem to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, demand a slice of your paycheck, or pass out pamphlets and annoy you during dinner because they don't believe in God.

There have certainly been oppressive governments that espoused atheism as a central philosophy, but it can be argued effectively that they were oppressive regardless of religious doctrine. Their core philosophy was one of oppression.

My problems with Christianity are that some of them are constantly trying to convert others, they want their beleifs codified into law, and they have a habit of using pseudoscience to back up their creation myth. I know that doesn't apply to all Christians, but it applies to enough of them to sour my opinion.


1) The "Conversion" thing is simpley a matter of Christians (myself included) have been ordered by Jesus to spread his word. The problem is, people have to walk a thin line between spreading the word of Jesus by telling people what it is and the other side of the line which is forcing it down their throats.

2) I think that a lot of Christians have the problem with Evolution because it is just a theory. Creation is a theory and it does have some real science behind it (I wont go into that now).

3) I think the idea behind their beliefs being encoded into law is merely a democratic one rarther than religious. They see (in America) that they are by far the largest religious group and therefore they should see some of their requests granted. Its not like they want every school in the country to do the Eucruist every Friday, I think its more prohibitation of what offends their beliefs rather than enforcing what pleases them.


I think the position that god doesn't exist is more rational because there's no real evidence to back up the position that he does. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Granted that's just my position, but you asked.

And as I said before there is no evidence to support why he doesnt. And some would say the Bible is that fantiastic evidence.

A lot of people don't like christianity because - despite what many here claim - it is a dominant cultural force in US society. Thus some non-christians feel threatened by and set out to attack it in an attempt to marginalize it. Unfortunately that just makes christians less tolerant of non-christians. It's a viscious cycle.

I've got a problem with anyone who chooses an 'off-the-shelf' belief structure over what lies buried between their left ear and their right ear.

Want a relationship with God? Have one, by all means. Just don't try to make others live their lives according to some dusty old book.

3) I think the idea behind their beliefs being encoded into law is merely a democratic one rarther than religious. They see (in America) that they are by far the largest religious group and therefore they should see some of their requests granted. Its not like they want every school in the country to do the Eucruist every Friday, I think its more prohibitation of what offends their beliefs rather than enforcing what pleases them.

Yes, but see, there's the problem: that's illegal and wrong

Because they bore me everytime I'm forced to go to church.

I think it's to do with that there are more christians where everybody live than other religions. Or you guys live in a more 'christian' nation.

Try living in a majority muslim or buddhist country, like I am, I'm sure you'll think differently once you know that there's not a christian knocking on your door asking if you know 'christ' rather a monk or a ulama asking you for money.

Oh yeah, the muslims don't look for converts. Or at least not by door knocking.

Because they bore me everytime I'm forced to go to church.

Then don't go.

[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]1) The "Conversion" thing is simpley a matter of Christians (myself included) have been ordered by Jesus to spread his word. The problem is, people have to walk a thin line between spreading the word of Jesus by telling people what it is and the other side of the line which is forcing it down their throats.

You are certainly free under the first ammendment to try to convert others, How would you feel if Atheists showed up unprovoked and tried to get you to renounce your faith? It's rather impolite.


2) I think that a lot of Christians have the problem with Evolution because it is just a theory. Creation is a theory and it does have some real science behind it (I wont go into that now).

Evolution has LOADS of evidence to back it up. Ceationism has the argument that evolution is just a theory. This debate has been done to death in this and many other forums. Evolution always wins. When a creationist publishes his theories in a peer-reviewed journal and doesn't get blown out of the water I'll consider creationism on a par with evolution.



3) I think the idea behind their beliefs being encoded into law is merely a democratic one rarther than religious. They see (in America) that they are by far the largest religious group and therefore they should see some of their requests granted. Its not like they want every school in the country to do the Eucruist every Friday, I think its more prohibitation of what offends their beliefs rather than enforcing what pleases them.


The separation of church and state is there for a very good reason. Just because the majority share in christian beleifs doesn't mean they get to dictate those beleifs to the minority. If someday muslims become a majority in this country you will be very grateful for that protection.


And as I said before there is no evidence to support why he doesnt. And some would say the Bible is that fantiastic evidence

There doesn't need to be evidence to support that he doesn't. It's almost impossible to prove a negative, and thus the burden of proof rests on he who makes the positive claim. You say he exists. I say prove it to me, or I don't beleive you. The bible is self-contradictory. Note that the root of the word fantastic is fantasy.

2) I think that a lot of Christians have the problem with Evolution because it is just a theory. Creation is a theory and it does have some real science behind it (I wont go into that now).

Um, no. Evolution is a scientific theory. If you say "just a theory" then you obviously do not understand what that means. Creation is not a scientific theory.

3) I think the idea behind their beliefs being encoded into law is merely a democratic one rarther than religious. They see (in America) that they are by far the largest religious group and therefore they should see some of their requests granted. Its not like they want every school in the country to do the Eucruist every Friday, I think its more prohibitation of what offends their beliefs rather than enforcing what pleases them.[/QUOTE]

You must be talking to different Christians.

1) The only problems I have with Christianity are the sacrifice of logic that often goes along with religion in general and the consistent hypocracy and judgemental attitudes exhibited by some of its members.


A religion is seprate from its followers. Many people forget that just because religous followers do some horrible things, that does not influence the religion itself.


My problem in the first part, is that if there is a (g)G(_)(o)d(dess)(s)(es) out there, and he/she/it/they created us the way we are (with logic and reason), I find it very hard to accept that he/she/it/they would not want us to use them.


Why exactly does a Christian have to abandon logic and reason.


My problem in the second part is that the Patriarch of the philosophy (the big JC), was a very contrarian individual who obviously despised religion and had a very big problem with hypocracy and judgemental attitudes. It therefore doubles the vitriolic response I get normally when I see these attitudes from Christians in particular because not only are they immoral in their own right, but they directly conflict with the desires and philosophy of the man they call God.


One of the amazing things I find about the church as a institution is that it is never mentioned anywhere in the Gospels. Jesus did not set up an instiution as a religion. I dont know where the Church as an instution came from but it was not Jesus's teaching. (Not that I am knocking the Chuch, but it could do a great deal more if it would decentralise itself more)

You are certainly free under the first ammendment to try to convert others, How would you feel if Atheists showed up unprovoked and tried to get you to renounce your faith? It's rather impolite.


I agree with you. As I said we have a fine line to walk.



Evolution has LOADS of evidence to back it up. Ceationism has the argument that evolution is just a theory. This debate has been done to death in this and many other forums. Evolution always wins. When a creationist publishes his theories in a peer-reviewed journal and doesn't get blown out of the water I'll consider creationism on a par with evolution.


Firstly, evolution and creation both have flaws (I dont want to go into them now, but I would be happier if people accepted they were equal) and they both have evidence. Lets just accept that neither one can be proved as the origin of life for certianity and that each requires a level of faith.


The separation of church and state is there for a very good reason. Just because the majority share in christian beleifs doesn't mean they get to dictate those beleifs to the minority. If someday muslims become a majority in this country you will be very grateful for that protection.


You missed my point. Christians only want to outlaw things that offend their religion, not make their religion mandotory by law. Muslims often do both in their states.


There doesn't need to be evidence to support that he doesn't. It's almost impossible to prove a negative, and thus the burden of proof rests on he who makes the positive claim. You say he exists. I say prove it to me, or I don't beleive you. The bible is self-contradictory. Note that the root of the word fantastic is fantasy.

What I mean is, whether he exists or not is a non certianly proveable statement. There is a lack of certian proof in both camps so why is it that the one (God's existance) is always seen more stupid and illogical than the other (God's non existance) as both sides have an inablity to prove a certianity.

I agree with you. As I said we have a fine line to walk.




Firstly, evolution and creation both have flaws (I dont want to go into them now, but I would be happier if people accepted they were equal) and they both have evidence. Lets just accept that neither one can be proved as the origin of life for certianity and that each requires a level of faith.



You missed my point. Christians only want to outlaw things that offend their religion, not make their religion mandotory by law. Muslims often do both in their states.



What I mean is, whether he exists or not is a non certianly proveable statement. There is a lack of certian proof in both camps so why is it that the one (God's existance) is always seen more stupid and illogical than the other (God's non existance) as both sides have an inablity to prove a certianity.


Evolution and creation are absolutely NOT equal. There is plenty of hard evidence for evolution. None at all for creation. In debates with creationists all they ever do is point out that there are some gaps in the fossil record, and evolution hasn't been experimentally proven. They provide NO evidence that can't be debunked to support their claims.

Under the first ammendment you can't ban speech that offends your religion. That's it. Plain and simple.

Please provide evidence for the existence of a god. I have seen no hard evidence, only some sketchy arguments and speculation, and I used to post on alt.atheism, and alt.atheism.moderated.

hmm well maybe right off the bat i should say that i am a christian.

reading through everything here i notice alot of people dont like christians because we "force" our religion on people, when most of us dont. christianity is a religion that allows you to choose between it and something else. Another thing that bugs me is christians who do try and force things on others, i always hate it when parents force their kids into the religion. im not talking about little kids, but teens, another thing ive noticed in some of these replies is people saying how and what jesus taught, and comparing us to him, we are not perfect. God and his son are. Christians do try and convert people, its not because the bible says so, its because we see whats changed in us, and in our life, and we want that person to have the same. if a christian comes up to you and starts saying something, kindly say no thank you, or something and they should leave you alone, if they dont then walk away, your being a better person than them for doing so.

Then don't go.
I don't if I can avoid it.

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

1. i don't really have any problems with christianity in and of itself. it's the followers of christianity who sit there and say "all non-christians are amoral." "everyone should be a christian" "those fags are going to burn in hell" et c. that i have problems with. just yesterday someone made an entire thread saying that christians were so poorly represented and then they proceeded to say that the nicest people they've ever met are christians and that every single atheist is mean-spirited, cruel, selfish, greedy, uses people et c.

2. i don't consider either really stable to use your terminilogy. i'm an agnostic. i'm well aware that i don't know, probably will never know, et c. and acutally, i think that no one else knows either, they jsut pretend they do either way.

Firstly, evolution and creation both have flaws (I dont want to go into them now, but I would be happier if people accepted they were equal) and they both have evidence. Lets just accept that neither one can be proved as the origin of life for certianity and that each requires a level of faith.

what scientific proof is there for creationism.

here i'll save you some time: none.

that evolution occured is a fact. the mechanisms are theory. and evolution also does not concern itself with the origins of life. evolution is concerned with the development of life.

You missed my point. Christians only want to outlaw things that offend their religion, not make their religion mandotory by law. Muslims often do both in their states.

well, your religion offends mine.

does that mean that your religion should be outlawed?

1.) Its not so much Christianity I have a problem with, its some of the very vocal followers who try to impose their beliefs and belittle others. I have the same problems with atheists or other followers of different religions. I live in a very christain area and just the other day at my school I noticed three christain students harassing my friend, who is muslim. They rudely questioned her beliefs and one even had the gall to say that since she isnt saved by jesus she is going to hell. wtf? :(

hmm well maybe right off the bat i should say that i am a christian.

reading through everything here i notice alot of people dont like christians because we "force" our religion on people, when most of us dont. christianity is a religion that allows you to choose between it and something else. Another thing that bugs me is christians who do try and force things on others, i always hate it when parents force their kids into the religion. im not talking about little kids, but teens, another thing ive noticed in some of these replies is people saying how and what jesus taught, and comparing us to him, we are not perfect. God and his son are. Christians do try and convert people, its not because the bible says so, its because we see whats changed in us, and in our life, and we want that person to have the same. if a christian comes up to you and starts saying something, kindly say no thank you, or something and they should leave you alone, if they dont then walk away, your being a better person than them for doing so.

You are a minority in my part of the country (buckle of the bible belt) as I've been physicaly attacked for refusing to adhere to strict fundamentalist christian belifes. Note, I'm not an Atheiest, Pagan, Buddhist or Agnostic, I'm a liberal christian, and the remark that got me smacked with a bible was "I think that the Bible, as it is writen by man, should be seen more as a literary work than a literal one, and as such, the message should have more weight than the by wrote doctrine." Note, this wasn't an isolated incident and I was harrassed by these people (members of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a terrible misnomer as it casts a bad image on the American Baptists who are willing to by and large listen and engage you in civil conversation) for several years.

My responce to your questions, from my liberal Christian, and apprently heratical belife structure.

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why? - Note I don't have a problem with Christianity, and I get along wonderfully with most Christians, it is the small minority that are most vocal, such as the Christian Coalition, the Religious Right, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Televangelists that I have a problem with. As a liberal Christian, many of my belifes and policies are starkly in contrast with the belifes and ideals of the Religous Right, and it irritates me that they seem to belive that thier way is the only right and moral way. To claim that they are better christians than I is insulting, it is arrogant, and it is foolhardy. I won't go into detail about my belifes, other than to state that I am not alone in this outrage. As a member fo the Disciples of Christ Church, we feel that as Christians our duty is not to regulate humanity and force humanity to God, but to remove all regulations that act as stumbling blocks in this respect. If man comes to God because of his free will, then it is a more sincere member that has been converted than if he comes because the law of the land forces a new morality upon him and he has been scared into the church by threats of hell, or worse yet, sociatal punishments. Secondly, the fact that said people are launching a full scale assault to legislate thier morality upon all people is repugnate, and the recent break downs between church and state with public funding of faith based therapy programs frightens me. The seperation of Church and State is not in place to protect the State, it is in place to protect the Church from the State's control. You don't trust the state to teach your children about sex, and yet you trust them to teach your children about God? With a state that worships Mannon, I'd be VERY warry of consumerizing our religion. The major holidays have nearly lost all true meaning through comercialization, do you really want that to happen to communion? To the Crusifixtion? to the Resurection? Thanks, no, our church has turned down state funding to keep the State from being able to make demands on us and have that funding to use as blackmail material.

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does? - Three words, Occom's Razor Law. A deity adds a massive degree of complexity to the origin of all reality, and as such a deity can not be explained, most fall back on the "God is too complex to be understood by humanity". While possible, the Razor Law states that if there are two opposing possibilities, nature tends to favor the simplest of the two. It held true in the question of what the center of the universe, it held true when fixed contients were proven to be false, not to mention the church's complication of it's own doctrins till Martin Luthur cleaned them up with a simplistic system that worked better and cleared up many questiosn that before hand had simly been answered by more and more complex edicts, dictatates, translations and doctrins.

My problems with Christianity are that some of them are constantly trying to convert others, they want their beleifs codified into law, and they have a habit of using pseudoscience to back up their creation myth. I know that doesn't apply to all Christians, but it applies to enough of them to sour my opinion.

I think the position that god doesn't exist is more rational because there's no real evidence to back up the position that he does. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Granted that's just my position, but you asked.

christians are not always trying to convert people. Youre thinking of jehovah's (I dont care if i spelt it wrong) witnesses. they left some cuttings from a bible in my bin a few weeks ago basically saying that the world is going to end and everyone is going to die.

talk about depressing. my message to jehova's witnesses is --STOP LEAVING THINGS IN MY TRASH CAN YOU APOCALYPSE-MONGERING PSYCOPATHS-- :headbang: :mp5:

christians are not always trying to convert people. Youre thinking of jehovah's (I dont care if i spelt it wrong) witnesses. they left some cuttings from a bible in my bin a few weeks ago basically saying that the world is going to end and everyone is going to die.

talk about depressing. my message to jehova's witnesses is --STOP LEAVING THINGS IN MY TRASH CAN YOU APOCALYPSE-MONGERING PSYCOPATHS-- :headbang: :mp5:
I did say that SOME of them are always trying to convert others. I never said all of them.

A religion is seprate from its followers. Many people forget that just because religous followers do some horrible things, that does not influence the religion itself.

I completely disagree, a religion, like a government, corporation, or tribe of people is always the sum of it's members. It is in no way seperate from them. If the followers of a religion (or corporation, or tribe), do some horrible thing, it reflects on the rest of the collective. I can certainly agree and attest to the fact that there are a lot of individuals that profess to be christians (in fact, I am willing to contend that it may be most of the people that do so) that are wonderful, charitable, accepting, compassionate, and intelligent people. But one bad apple can spoil the bunch.

Why exactly does a Christian have to abandon logic and reason.

I didn't say they had to. I didn't even mean to imply that they do a majority of the time. However, the fall back of any argument with a Christian is always that this or that is, and even has to be, accepted on faith. They make this argument even when what the subject of their faith flies in the face of reason. An example argument being the Adam and Eve one, Global flood, Virgin Birth, or resurrection of the dead. That an individual is willing to accept these as litteral truths in spite of direct evidence to the contrary or much simpler explanations for supporting evidence is an abandonment of the reason and intelligence they say that God gave them.

I.E. God gave us all eyes and ears and brains yet wants us to not pay attention to the things we see, hear, or think. This is self-contradictory and illogical.

One of the amazing things I find about the church as a institution is that it is never mentioned anywhere in the Gospels. Jesus did not set up an instiution as a religion. I dont know where the Church as an instution came from but it was not Jesus's teaching. (Not that I am knocking the Chuch, but it could do a great deal more if it would decentralise itself more)

You have Gnostics, Simon Peter, and Paul of Tarsus to blame for the church as an institution existing in the first place. You have the Romans to blame for spreading it. And you have everyone else who claims to be a member to blame for it's continued level of control over the populace.

I am a Deist (i recently found out when I looked at my personal beliefs and found out there was an actual name for it) and that basically means that God created the object that was to become the big bang and create the universe. After this, God left for wherever or whatever (maybe another universe was more interesting) leaving the universe on its own. (that's enough for intro to my religion, onto the issue)

1) My problems with christianity:
I disagree with the structure of christianity. It's similar to brainwashing, almost too much. "If you follow God, we'll give you heaven." then the person proceeds to dangle heaven in front of your face until you must have it. If that doesn't work, plan b: threaten with hell. they tell you terrible stories of burning the flesh off of your bones forever, unless you convert. Neither of these messages are good ones. You're either looking for a reward or threatening punishment. I believe conversion should be more passive, and should really only be about the ideals of the thing, stated outright, like Aesop's fables (and the moral of the story is: ). I mean, Jesus did a lot of stuff that's hard to believe for anybody unfamiliar with the religion, but if you merely accept the view that he didn't actually do miracles, the messages are much more clear. Be kind to your fellow man. That about sums up the Bible without miracles: Be Kind. Somehow the message gets twisted in the interpretation of the specific religion into "God hates queers/women/blacks/etc." directly after stating "God is love" Which is also why I can't understand the Religious right trying to cut into everybody's lifestyle instead of having faith in their fellow man and letting them do what the believe is right (example, trying to outlaw gay marriages because they don't believe in it, and abortions, which I also think are bad, but should be allowable in specific cases ie: rape, incest, mortal danger, and really only early on, none of this inhumane late-term abortion crap, i mean, why would you carry your rapists baby for 8 months?)

That's my problem with christianity

(i don't like church merely because it's boring, but to be fair, they were Roman Catholic masses)

2) I say the stance that God does not exist is more stable than the stance that God does exist. If you consider the Bible (one of christianity's great proofs) there are statements about the Earth and universe that have been disproven decades ago. Consider that We are God's creations and He placed us at the center of all things, including the universe. Scientific observation shows that we're only at the center of our observable universe (and there is a good explanation for this: Because the universe is constantly expanding, and the speed of light is constant for all observers, we can only see objects that are (age of the universe in seconds)*(3*10^8 m/s[the speed of light]) meters away in every direction. However the ditribution and pull of all spacial mass puts us somewhere in the middle of an edge of the universe. Or I can go even smaller: The Sol star system (ours) is not the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Even smaller: the Earth is not the center of the Sol star system.
After that, we have the terrible estimates as to the age of the Earth given directly to man from God. Our own scientific estimates (through Carbon-14 dating) put the Earth at approximately 4.6 billion years old and the universe at 20 billion based on observable distances. The bible says that everything in the universe was created within seven days of each other and only about 10,000 years ago. Since this means that God's word was wrong, then God can't exist as infallible, therefore cannot exist. Either that, or you accept that the men who wrote the bible made errors, or outright made it up.

I say that this belief is more stable because You cannot accept an all loving God who floods the planet (murder: commandment 4, ex: Noah's ark) and destroys towns for some immoral (to him) behavior (Sodom and Gamorra) unless you choose to overlook such things like that.

It's a bit long, but I thank you if you suffered all the way through.

Well, here I go.
I think we've already pretty well established that it isn't the religion at fault, but its manifestations. Mainly the way the christian church has gone about evangelism.
Christianity itself is supposed to be drawing, and when it is practiced well, with an eye toward pleasing and loving God rather than attempting to out-moral (yeah, I know, it isn't a word) everyone else, it is a drawing thing. And people who become christians because they've seen and been drawn by the way God has worked in the lives of those who love Him tend to become stronger Christians that those who were handed a tract when they were at an emotionally weak point and accepted it out of desperation.
Jesus is supposed to be the model of our lives (no so much in the walking around the desert part, but the attitude and mindset) and the way he did evalgelism was not going door to door and telling strangers they're damned to the eternal fire if they do not repent, but instead he spoke to those who came to listen, and lived his life in such a way that their curiosity was aroused.
Also, about the church: someone commented that it is not actually mentioned in the gospels. However, the basis of the church is: decipleship. Jesus took his deciples and through his contact with them tried to teach them how to live as a Christian. he also taught others who he did not personally know. This is the perfect model of the Christian community. We have close relationships in which people grow together and a larger community in which these groups share with eachother and develop as a family.
Of course, you can never overestimate the human tendancy to screw good things up. We took Christ's model of evangelism and twisted it into an annoyance, and because of various social and economic reasons changed God's community of stronger Christians mentering newer and weaker ones into a heirarchy.

Ok, as for question two, we could argue that for hours. And believe me, time and time again, I have. But in the end, you never get anywhere. As everything but agnosticism, Christianity takes faith. You can never prove Christianity, and whoever said they could conclusively do so lied. However, that isn't the point. The burden of proof doesn't lie on anyone, because it is fundamentally a matter of belief, not fact. I would not expect anyone to support scientific theory with how it ulfills us, makes us whole, or explains the human condition. Please do not ask me to support my beliefs in scientific terms. If we are competing in a purely scientific arena, of course Christianity will lose. It places value on the unseen and the non-physical above the rhelm in which science reigns.
Now that science has been exluded, we can turn to philosophy. Why do I believe the bible? Because I take what I see, what I hear, what my heart tells me, what my mind tells me, and I find the bible to be true. I have placed my faith in it, and once you do that, you find it supports itself in ways that are impossible to argue to a nonchristian. Why must I believe on an "off-the-shelf religion" rather than whatever I feel is true at this moment? Because I have found that one of the faultiest things is my emotional state.
Ok, then, why not agnosticism? "Choosing agnosticism as a form of belief is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation." That's paraphrased from a book called "Life of Pi" (whose merits I won't defend because it has one of the greatest dangers of misinterpretation of all the books I've read) but it expresses what I mean. Of course one can't know for certain. But I can't live in fear of making the wrong decision and committing my life to a cause that isn't right. Even if christianity were untrue (though I believe completely it is not) I would regret my life less than had I chosen not to believe. Without God, there really is no reason for Hope. I spent a great deal of time attemping to observe the world from a secular worldview, and I can find no hope without God. And to me, death would be preferable to life without hope, because life without hope is nothing but an extended death.

Ok, there's my take. I could go on like this for a while, but I think you'll appreciate me not doing so. :)
Wow, that took a while.

Evolution and creation are absolutely NOT equal. There is plenty of hard evidence for evolution. None at all for creation. In debates with creationists all they ever do is point out that there are some gaps in the fossil record, and evolution hasn't been experimentally proven. They provide NO evidence that can't be debunked to support their claims.


I didnt want to have to do this, but oh well. The Cambrian Strata. If your an educated evolutionist then you will know of it. Here there was an explosion in the diversity of life. All of a sudden all sorts of animals were burried at once. Complex animals, not single celled ones but complicated and multi celled lifeforms, jellyfish and others. Before this point, there is nothing approching the level of complexity of what is found in the Cambrian strata. Evolution as you have pointed out is a gradual process, yet here there is a clear explosion of all the complex animals of today's ancestors. And if you could somehow explain the fact that they all evolved at once in complex form, there is still the small problem of how they were all burried across the entire world at the same time. Cambrian strata fossils are found at the same level in South Africa, Austrailia, British Coulmbia etc. They are all at nearly exactly the same level in regards to time of burrial in the rock. This supports the idea of a mass creation all at once and that the flood then happened later, burrying a large number of those animals that did not get into the Ark.


Please provide evidence for the existence of a god. I have seen no hard evidence, only some sketchy arguments and speculation, and I used to post on alt.atheism, and alt.atheism.moderated.

I never said there was "Hard evidence" as you put it. There is no hard evidence for Gods non existance either. So why is one so much more paletable than the other.

I didnt want to have to do this, but oh well. The Cambrian Strata. If your an educated evolutionist then you will know of it. Here there was an explosion in the diversity of life. All of a sudden all sorts of animals were burried at once. Complex animals, not single celled ones but complicated and multi celled lifeforms, jellyfish and others. Before this point, there is nothing approching the level of complexity of what is found in the Cambrian strata. Evolution as you have pointed out is a gradual process, yet here there is a clear explosion of all the complex animals of today's ancestors. And if you could somehow explain the fact that they all evolved at once in complex form, there is still the small problem of how they were all burried across the entire world at the same time. Cambrian strata fossils are found at the same level in South Africa, Austrailia, British Coulmbia etc. They are all at nearly exactly the same level in regards to time of burrial in the rock. This supports the idea of a mass creation all at once and that the flood then happened later, burrying a large number of those animals that did not get into the Ark.

I wouldn't use the flood as a point for creationism. Logic could never point towards a complete eradication of all life save one man's family and two of every species. I don't know anything about the Cambrian strata but from what you have stated it does nothing to promote Creationism as there was a fossil record before this great explosion of life.

2) I say the stance that God does not exist is more stable than the stance that God does exist. If you consider the Bible (one of christianity's great proofs) there are statements about the Earth and universe that have been disproven decades ago. Consider that We are God's creations and He placed us at the center of all things, including the universe. Scientific observation shows that we're only at the center of our observable universe (and there is a good explanation for this: Because the universe is constantly expanding, and the speed of light is constant for all observers, we can only see objects that are (age of the universe in seconds)*(3*10^8 m/s[the speed of light]) meters away in every direction. However the ditribution and pull of all spacial mass puts us somewhere in the middle of an edge of the universe. Or I can go even smaller: The Sol star system (ours) is not the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Even smaller: the Earth is not the center of the Sol star system.
After that, we have the terrible estimates as to the age of the Earth given directly to man from God. Our own scientific estimates (through Carbon-14 dating) put the Earth at approximately 4.6 billion years old and the universe at 20 billion based on observable distances. The bible says that everything in the universe was created within seven days of each other and only about 10,000 years ago. Since this means that God's word was wrong, then God can't exist as infallible, therefore cannot exist. Either that, or you accept that the men who wrote the bible made errors, or outright made it up.


Carbon dating is essentially flawed. Carbon dating has proved the earth to be so many millions of years old and also has proven some old car parts to be a good thousand or so years old. Its unreliable. And where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect of "Earth is at the centre of the universe". And I have a problem with the universe expanding idea. We are on the edge of our galaxy yes? On one of the outer spiral arms. So therefore we would expect (using redshift) to find a large ammount of the stars moving towards us. (those behind us in the explosion) and a large ammount moving away (those behind us. See here


Source of explosion material moving ->

t ......................................... O-Earth in solar system...............
t....................... O-A star t....................................................
t................................................................O-B star..............................

you would expect that redshift from A star would be shown as moving towards us and B star moving away, but acording to redshift all are moving away.

I wouldn't use the flood as a point for creationism. Logic could never point towards a complete eradication of all life save one man's family and two of every species. I don't know anything about the Cambrian strata but from what you have stated it does nothing to promote Creationism as there was a fossil record before this great explosion of life.

Firstly you are wrong. THERE ARE NO INDISPUTABLE FOSSILS BELOW THE CAMBRIAN STRATA. And those that are in dispute are nowhere near as advanced as the ones in the Cambrian stata and they are very much in dispute. So evolution somehow speed up and then the entire record of the speed up was burried in sediment somehow at the same time? Or God created all the creatures at once and then they are flooded and burried all at once.

I didnt want to have to do this, but oh well. The Cambrian Strata. If your an educated evolutionist then you will know of it. Here there was an explosion in the diversity of life. All of a sudden all sorts of animals were burried at once. Complex animals, not single celled ones but complicated and multi celled lifeforms, jellyfish and others. Before this point, there is nothing approching the level of complexity of what is found in the Cambrian strata. Evolution as you have pointed out is a gradual process, yet here there is a clear explosion of all the complex animals of today's ancestors. And if you could somehow explain the fact that they all evolved at once in complex form, there is still the small problem of how they were all burried across the entire world at the same time. Cambrian strata fossils are found at the same level in South Africa, Austrailia, British Coulmbia etc. They are all at nearly exactly the same level in regards to time of burrial in the rock. This supports the idea of a mass creation all at once and that the flood then happened later, burrying a large number of those animals that did not get into the Ark.



I never said there was "Hard evidence" as you put it. There is no hard evidence for Gods non existance either. So why is one so much more paletable than the other.


The "cambrian explosion" is not evidence for creation. First of all, it wasn't instantaneous. The cambrian period did stretch over a sizable period of time. Secondly, there are precambrian fossils. So the cambrian organisms did have ancestors to evolve from. Third, the cambrian period saw the development of hard parts on animals, teeth, jaws, etc. this signaled the beginning of an "arms race" that applied greater selective pressure which would accelerate evolution. The new mutations wouldn't be drowned out in a sea of sameness. They would spread faster as the old forms died out quickly. Also hard parts on organisms tend to fossilize better. All that combined accounts for the many diverse fossils in cambrian strata.
If evolution never happened then why don't we find poropises, dogs, even human remains in cambrian rock?

Since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies on he who makes the positive statement. I will beleive in god if evidence for his existance is provided. Lacking that evidence I don't beleive. Would you beleive me if I said that I had an invisible dragon in the trunk of my car and provided you with no proof?

On the cambrian explosion.
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

The "cambrian explosion" is not evidence for creation. First of all, it wasn't instantaneous. The cambrian period did stretch over a sizable period of time. Secondly, there are precambrian fossils. So the cambrian organisms did have ancestors to evolve from. Third, the cambrian period saw the development of hard parts on animals, teeth, jaws, etc. this signaled the beginning of an "arms race" that applied greater selective pressure which would accelerate evolution. The new mutations wouldn't be drowned out in a sea of sameness. They would spread faster as the old forms died out quickly. Also hard parts on organisms tend to fossilize better. All that combined accounts for the many diverse fossils in cambrian strata.
If evolution never happened then why don't we find poropises, dogs, even human remains in cambrian rock?


There are precambrian fossils but these are not nearly as advanced as those in the Cambrian. My point is, why the speed up and why the sudden global burrial. All across the world the Cambrian explosion is found and all those burried are found at near the same level at every place. I am not saying every animal was created as it is now, evolution happened post Eden but it in itself did not create life (abiogenesis). I'm not saying this is ceritian proof but it does show that the position of creationism is debateable and stands up to scrutiny


Since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies on he who makes the positive statement. I will beleive in god if evidence for his existance is provided. Lacking that evidence I don't beleive. Would you beleive me if I said that I had an invisible dragon in the trunk of my car and provided you with no proof?

I am not asking you to prove a negaitve. I am simpley asking why is it so hard to believe one thing without proof you accept (God's existance) and another thing without proof (God's non existance) neither statement can be proven or disproven concretely so why is one so much more acceptable?

On the cambrian explosion.
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

The age is debateable. If your talking about carbon dating then it is seriously flawed as carbon dating has found car parts which are several thousands of years old.

There are precambrian fossils but these are not nearly as advanced as those in the Cambrian. My point is, why the speed up and why the sudden global burrial. All across the world the Cambrian explosion is found and all those burried are found at near the same level at every place. I am not saying every animal was created as it is now, evolution happened post Eden but it in itself did not create life (abiogenesis)



I am not asking you to prove a negaitve. I am simpley asking why is it so hard to believe one thing without proof you accept (God's existance) and another thing without proof (God's non existance) neither statement can be proven or disproven concretely so why is one so much more acceptable?


A good reason for why evolution sped up was given in my first response to your "cambrian" post.

Not beleiving in god doesn't require beleif. It, by definition, requires lack of beleif. For me, beleif in something as extraordinary as a deity requires a good deal of evidence.

The idea of an "Arms race" of evolution still does not expalin the fact that prior the Cambrian strata there are NO indisputable fossils. Yet when the Cambrian strata comes, all sorts of complex lifeforms come at once. And while you can try and explain the speeding up, there is still the little problem of the sudden worldwide burrial. At every point where the Cambrian strata's explosion is discovered, the same level is found. Nearly exactly the same. Are you going to tell me that there was a speed up and it was somehow neetly recorded for us to debate now? The age of the strata is questionable, given that Carbon dating is severely flawed.

Carbon dating is essentially flawed. Carbon dating has proved the earth to be so many millions of years old and also has proven some old car parts to be a good thousand or so years old. Its unreliable.

carbon dating is not the only method used. carbon dating can only be used on organic substances (so i don't know how they used it on cars)

for testing rocks, strontium/rubidium dating is used as well as argon/potassium. these are reliable (well, argon can only tell you the length of time since the last meteor impact on a rock), but still.

And I have a problem with the universe expanding idea. We are on the edge of our galaxy yes? On one of the outer spiral arms. So therefore we would expect (using redshift) to find a large ammount of the stars moving towards us. (those behind us in the explosion) and a large ammount moving away (those behind us. See here


Source of explosion material moving ->

t ......................................... O-Earth in solar system...............
t....................... O-A star t....................................................
t................................................................O-B star..............................

you would expect that redshift from A star would be shown as moving towards us and B star moving away, but acording to redshift all are moving away.
you misunderstand the idea of the expansion of the universe.

all of space is expanding and moving apart, there is no source from which the material moves, the big bang happened everywhere. think of the universe as the surface of a balloon. pretend there are little dots on the surface of this balloon. let's call those dots on the balloon the galaxies, shall we?

now, what happens when you inflate the balloon? the dots move away from each other. all of the dots move away from each other, they do not move in a certain direction (remember you're thinking of a 2-D surface as a 3-D world, ignore the centre of the balloon for this thought experiement, it is only the surface) so from the outside of one of those dots (representing our place in the galaxy) all the other galaxies are still moving away at the same rate, no matter which side of the galaxy they're on.

Briefly: I gave up Christianity for several reasons. I was raised in an Episcopalian school, and was asked one day what religion I was. I said I guessed I was Episcopalian, then realized it wasn't for any particular reason. I learned that that sect was founded (as Anglicanism) by a power-hungry serial killer, Henry VIII, then renamed to avoid being English -- not a great theological starting point. I didn't believe for any reason other than that I'd never really questioned it.

I studied evolution and Locke and Sagan ("The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle In the Dark" -- great book). From them I saw there was no need for a God to explain why the universe exists and how it works; that while science doesn't have all the answers, it's the only reliable tool we have for learning; and that faith is best understood as a flaw in the human mind that may have helped our ancestors band together to kill rival tribes, but that brings mostly suffering today. Logic and the evidence just didn't support Christianity or religion in general.

At the same time I decided Christianity was immoral. The Old Testament has God ordering the Hebrews to commit slavery, rape, and genocide, and to murder anyone who questions their beliefs. Historical Christians, when they had power, practiced all kinds of evil in the name of their religion, and found plenty of justification in their Bible for it. Even Hitler was supposedly a Catholic in good standing; the Church took large donations from him and sent him birthday greetings. The theology in general had a perverse aspect to it too when I looked more closely; renounce your God-given reasoning ability and believe what authority figures tell you? Win salvation just by being obedient, rather than by being a good person? Accept a genocidal God to save your own soul?

So I gave it all up and became an agnostic, trying to convert others to the lack-of-faith. It would be dishonest for me to believe something just because I thought the act of believing would help me. It would be immoral to sell my mind that way. There are some appealing aspects to religion, and some serious flaws in the scientific worldview that need correcting, but I won't buy Christianity as it's presently marketed. It would have to change a lot to satisfy me.

Kris

The idea of an "Arms race" of evolution still does not expalin the fact that prior the Cambrian strata there are NO indisputable fossils. Yet when the Cambrian strata comes, all sorts of complex lifeforms come at once. And while you can try and explain the speeding up, there is still the little problem of the sudden worldwide burrial. At every point where the Cambrian strata's explosion is discovered, the same level is found. Nearly exactly the same. Are you going to tell me that there was a speed up and it was somehow neetly recorded for us to debate now? The age of the strata is questionable, given that Carbon dating is severely flawed.
You claim there are no indesputable fossils. Actually it's pretty well accepted in the scientific community that there are precambrian fossils. As for it being in the same level, that level covers a large ammount of time. It wasn't laid down overnight.

You claim there are no indesputable fossils. Actually it's pretty well accepted in the scientific community that there are precambrian fossils. As for it being in the same level, that level covers a large ammount of time. It wasn't laid down overnight.

And while there are said fossils, why are they not as complex as the Cambrian strata explosion. Surely the idea of evolution states that it is gradual, not isntantanious. And the age of the level is extremely suspect. Even by archiological standards, they are far too close togther for evolution to be right. And why the GLOBAL event. Surely evolution happenes at diffrent rates in diffrent enviroments. But this was a global event. You cannot sucessfully argue the fact that evolution suddenly took off all around the world at the same time. And carbon dating is not only used on organic substances, they use it on anchient buildings and metalic artifacts too.

And while there are said fossils, why are they not as complex as the Cambrian strata explosion. Surely the idea of evolution states that it is gradual, not isntantanious. And the age of the level is extremely suspect. Even by archiological standards, they are far too close togther for evolution to be right. And why the GLOBAL event. Surely evolution happenes at diffrent rates in diffrent enviroments. But this was a global event. You cannot sucessfully argue the fact that evolution suddenly took off all around the world at the same time. And carbon dating is not only used on organic substances, they use it on anchient buildings and metalic artifacts too.
It didn't happen instantaneously. The minimum ammount of time proposed for the cambrian explosion is, what, like 5 million years? 5 million years is plenty of time for evolution to take place. As for the global event, much of the earth was covered in shallow seas. It's easy for aquatic life forms to move around. They have fewer barriers than terrestrial life forms that have to deal with large bodies of water and mountain ranges.

And carbon dating is not only used on organic substances, they use it on anchient buildings and metalic artifacts too.
it can't be used on metallic substances. metallic substances don't tend to have carbon... thus making carbon dating on such objects stupid.

and they can be used on old buildings because old buildings were made with organic compounds. clay bricks anyone? wood?

carbon 14 dating works simply: a living being will coninue to take in cabon until it dies, thus it will maintain a certain ratio of carbon ions. when it dies, it stops taking in more carbon. carbon-14 is a radioactive substance with a half life, meaning that half the substance will decay in (i think) 5,200 years. by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to the other carbon atoms in a dead thing (say its bones) we can tell how long it's been dead because of how much carbon-14 has decayed.

It didn't happen instantaneously. The minimum ammount of time proposed for the cambrian explosion is, what, like 5 million years? 5 million years is plenty of time for evolution to take place. As for the global event, much of the earth was covered in shallow seas. It's easy for aquatic life forms to move around. They have fewer barriers than terrestrial life forms that have to deal with large bodies of water and mountain ranges.

It DID happen nearly instantainously (by archiological standards). At every level where the Cambrian strata is found, even by archological standards they are far to close togther for it to be as long as you claim. And how are you dating this exactly?

it can't be used on metallic substances. metallic substances don't tend to have carbon... thus making carbon dating on such objects stupid.

Dont know if you noticed, but car's produce a great deal of carbon residue. Said residue was dated and found to be far older than the invention of cars never mind any discovery of petrolium.

It DID happen nearly instantainously (by archiological standards). At every level where the Cambrian strata is found, even by archological standards they are far to close togther for it to be as long as you claim. And how are you dating this exactly?
Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution by Robert L. Carrol, cambridge university press

carbon 14 dating works simply: a living being will coninue to take in cabon until it dies, thus it will maintain a certain ratio of carbon ions. when it dies, it stops taking in more carbon. carbon-14 is a radioactive substance with a half life, meaning that half the substance will decay in (i think) 5,200 years. by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to the other carbon atoms in a dead thing (say its bones) we can tell how long it's been dead because of how much carbon-14 has decayed.

There is a large problem with carbon dating which is this. Depending on how old something is it will be less/more intact. Thus the ratio of the molicules is impossible to be certian of as we dont know how much Carbon 14 there was in the oringinal object.

Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution by Robert L. Carrol, cambridge university press

The Bible. Which one has more clout? And there is something a lot of the Evolution/creation debate forgets. The Bible never says "How" he did something. It is possible he worked outside the laws of physics or inside them as being omnipotent he could have chosen.

The Bible. Which one has more clout?
Certainly not the bible.

The bible wasn't peer reviewed, and contains self-contradictions.

I despise the christian fundimentilists. Thats the only thing I have against Christianity, besides a bad history.

Certainly not the bible.

Why not? The Bible is written by dozens of authors. Yours is by just one. Which one has the error minimised

The Bible has the same idea and core beliefs running for the seveal thousand years of its authorship. Yours is just one mans work at one time which could easily be disproved later.

and contains self-contradictions.

Such as?

Why not? The Bible is written by dozens of authors. Yours is by just one. Which one has the error minimised

The Bible has the same idea and core beliefs running for the seveal thousand years of its authorship. Yours is just one mans work at one time which could easily be disproved later.
Mine is based on logical conclusions from observation. Yours, at least the part you are referencing, is the creation myth of a bronze age tribe. Mine is peer reviewed, and if found wrong will be corrected. The mistakes in yours can never be corrected because it is "the word of god".
The same ideas for 7000 years? Would Jesus have given the order to kill all the men and enslave all the women and girls of a rival tribe?

On the original issue. "We have no evidence that god doesn't exist."
We also have no evidence that invisible, intangible, pink unicorns aren't running around North America right now.Yet if I said I believed in them, I'd be locked up in an asylum.
The existance of god is just as hard to disprove as the existance of invisible, intangible, pink unicorns. And to me about as believable. But think whatever you like.
I agree with many of the previous posters. I have no problem with Christianity, it's a lot of the Christians I can't stand. Especially what fundamentalist christians do in public offices.

Such as?
here's one list
www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Nevermind, the above poster's is better.

It's not christianity, its the christians.
You hit the nail on the head! Christianity is wonderful, it is just a shame that most so-called christians haven't a clue what Jesus really taught and think they are "saved" just by virtue of calling themselves christian and blindly following edicts and rituals. Because they are already "saved" they think they should spend their time remaining cramming their anachronistic world view down my throat. For the record: No thank you!

Dont know if you noticed, but car's produce a great deal of carbon residue. Said residue was dated and found to be far older than the invention of cars never mind any discovery of petrolium.
did it ever occur to you that the petroleum is deposited from animals and palnts that are long dead?

that's what oil and gasoline are: dead plants and animals.

oh, and it's also nice to see that my explanation of the expansion of the universe went to waste. :(

oh, and it's also nice to see that my explanation of the expansion of the universe went to waste. :(

Nobody wants to listen your heresy or "satan science". :mad:

You should try and study "creation science" instead: it's much better. :)

oh, and it's also nice to see that my explanation of the expansion of the universe went to waste. :(
I liked it. Very concisely put.

It's not christianity, its the christians.

I blame Paul more then anything else

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?


1) Not all christianity is bad, but the kind that is is for these reason:
a. Opposition to reason and science, opposition to the instruction of the two to kids and opposition to research into the two.
b. Opposition to women's rights.
c. Attempt to use legal coercion to impose a certain set of values upon others.
d. Opposition to equal rights for homosexuals.

2) No evidence of god's existence, no necessity for god.

I blame Paul more then anything else


Paul is, in my opinion on the top of scumbag hill with Martin Luther, Stalin and Hitler.

Nobody wants to listen your heresy or "satan science". :mad:

You should try and study "creation science" instead: it's much better. :)

Better? Just because a certain explanation may give you a warm, comforting feeling inside doesn't make it any more likely to be right.

As for heresy? At its heart, heresy is simply the opposition of established dogma. It's an ugly-sounding word, but heresy seems a small price to payy for progress.

It's not christianity, its the christians.

Wives and Husbands

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


woman < man ??
This shit doesn't make sense.
Also, all through Leviticus and Deuteronomy The Benevolent God prescribes death for such menial "crimes" as working on the sabbath

Many people who call themselves christian blatantly disobey the Word of God and His commands because of changing social values and moral relativism.

The best example of this is a Commandment that God gives through His agent in Corinthians, He is even specific that this is His will:

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Immediately after, His agent (perhaps through God's omniscient understanding of the shock this might cause in the 20th century) adds:

1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.



If only christians these days would just stick to the Word of God and His commandments maybe the world wouldnt be in the state it is today.

When you see a woman talking in church, read this bible passage aloud and see to it that God's will be done in your congregation!

In addition to having a problem with many Christians, my problem with Christianity (and most religions) is that it is a memetic disease.
Like some advanced diseases that trick the immune system into looking them over, Christianity proposes that the "immune systems" of memetics, logic and the scientific method, are not to apply to it.
Like some other diseases that support the vectors by which they are transmitted, Christianity wants all of its victims to spread it.
As diseases must compete with each other, so too does Christianity try to squash any competing memes: from other religions to a heliocentric solar system.
Like viral diseases that mutate to surmount the immune system when they can't avoid it, Christians change their dogma when it flies in the face of evidence: "Oh, He meant that the sun figuratively stood still, not that it isn't the center of the solar system."

To sum it up, I don't like Christianity and organized religion because they're memes that do well by cheating.

There is a large problem with carbon dating which is this. Depending on how old something is it will be less/more intact. Thus the ratio of the molicules is impossible to be certian of as we dont know how much Carbon 14 there was in the oringinal object.
yes you can, by analysing the amount of other carbon isotopes and compare them to the ratio of all carbon isotopes...

it's not like one chunk of bone is going to be made excluisvely of c-14 and that piece will go missing... it simply doesn't work like that.

i just wanted to repeat this since noe cannen seems to have missed it:

Dont know if you noticed, but car's produce a great deal of carbon residue. Said residue was dated and found to be far older than the invention of cars never mind any discovery of petrolium.
did it ever occur to you that the petroleum is deposited from animals and palnts that are long dead?

that's what oil and gasoline are: dead plants and animals.

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

Interesting questions... and I think I finnaly get to write this down.. yay!

Anyway, my problems with Christianity are also problems I share with Judaism and Islam, as well as Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, and any other form of mass or organised religion. This in no way means that I hate the people who believe in these religions, but I do strongly dislike (Sometimes hate) the religion system itself.

Now, to try and be specific, I'll start with the obvious. However, I will be speaking generally, and in now way meaning this as every Christian. Past, present, or future.
- Too pushey: The way Christians are constantly trying to convery non-christians, or push their beliefs on everyone is simply offensive to me. I don't mind someone trying once, but after I tell them that I am in no way interested, then pushing the issue is simply offensive, and ignorant of my own right to freedom of religion.
- Their past: Unfortunatly, I'm quite into history, and Christianity's history is not exactly appealing to me. Espically parts of it coveted by most Christians who would fall into the above catagory, that I see as simply arrogent, ignorant, and generally hate. Examples of this include the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, Anti-Choice stuff, Anti-Equality stuff, and anything else that goes against my beliefs. And then of course the "forgetting" of the bad stuff, like for instance, Adolf Hitler was a devout Christian, and before 1914 his life long dream was to be a Preist. Yet, no one remembers that (I'm certianly hoping some people here knew that before I said it, I'm not holding it against Christianity, it's merely an example of selective history).
- Non-Christian History: Unfortunatly, this is a big one for me, and ties directly into Judaism and Islam. Unfortunatly, the Bible (Usually the Old-Testamant, but alot in the new too) tends to bash non-Christian cultures to a great extent. The use of the "Whores of Babylon" offends me greatly, and more then once someone as brought it up specifily to piss me off, and the ignorant, anti-whatever, pro-christian writing in the Bible is just too much of an infringment on my rights as a human. Unfortunatly all the refrences to Babylon (AKA Babel) that I can remember reading in my youth, are bad, and I don't take very kindly to that.

Which brings me to an odd question, one I'd like to ask since it pertains to why I dislike Christianity.
Does freedom of religion still apply when a religious belief is descriminatory towards another religion?
That question I always ask myself when I end up discussing this topic with people, both people who fight with me, or try to have an intellectual conversation. And it happens to be among the root thoughts to my dislike, since constantly my rights to religious freedom are violated by Christians who go by the rules of their religion, the devout who demand freedom of religion when I try to point out the flaws in their beliefs (Usually in a conversation started by them), and sway them in another direction for a moment, and then they turn around and force their beliefs upon me, not even suggest it, but force.

So basicly, Christianity, to me, is a vulgar concept of hatred and oppression. Those who truely believe in their religion, and accecpt the diversity of the world, are quite good freinds of mine. One of my best freinds is a devout Roman Catholic.

So many people here seem to have such great problems with religion and what it is and what it stands for (In particular Christianity) and I was wondering precisely what problems people have with it and why they have them. Also, I have observed that many people (interlecutauals mostly) seem to have this idea that the belief in God is absurd due to a lack of proof. However they fail to see that there is also a lack of proof that God does not exist, so how is there standpoint any diffrent. "God exists" is a statement that cannot be certianly proven or disproven so why are so many people so quick to claim "God doesnt exist there is no proof" when there is no proof for their viewpoint either. So in short I would like to know


Well, if we use your standards for determining whether something exists or not, we would have to accept leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Apollo, etc. until they could be completely disproven.

Needless to say, such a position is unrealistic and untenable, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

1) I hate Christianity because it is a religion that destroys knowledge of everything, holds back progress, has needlessly killed millions, it's original rules (any Christian cannot deny the Old Testament, if you do you are saying that the words of God were wrong, thus he is not perfect) support slavery, blood sacrifice, rape, pillaging and murder; it is a religion based on fear to gain members (that "OMG, you're going to burn in hell!" crap, burning 'witches', the Crusades); in addition to spreading fear, it also spreads hatred (the destruction of the Tower of Babel and thus the splintering of man's unity); it teaches mental suicide with it's restrictions on everything. I don't like Islam because it is even more violent and fanatical. I read a two page introduction and found a massive flaw "Allah has given us free will", "Allah has written our destinys".

2) The Riddle of someone or another, I forget his name:
If God cannot stop evil but tries to, he is not omnipotent
If God can stop evil but choses not to, he is malevolent
If God can neither stop evil and does not attempt to, then why call him God

Any who says, "Oh but all this misery is a test for those who are pure of faith", why would a benevolent God need to test us with such terrible things?

I personally believe God does exist, I think he's an being that wishes our destruction and ensalvement. It is also because he cannot be proven not to exist, thus he must.

things?

I personally believe God does exist, I think he's an being that wishes our destruction and ensalvement. It is also because he cannot be proven not to exist, thus he must.


You're absolutely wrong in your philosophy of proof and belief.

It is unreasonable to assume something exists until it is disproven, in fact it borders upon lunacy,since it necessitates that you believe an infinite number of ridiculous things that 'cannot be disproven' ie:
there is an invisible toaster on the moon
there are five invisible rabbits on the moon and they control Sean Hannity's mind,
there are seven invisible rabbits on mars and they control Tony Blair's digestion,
there are fourteen invisible cows floating in space, they control two of the rabbits that control Blair and one of the rabbits that control Hannity, ad infitum, &c. &c.


It is reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is false until evidence proves otherwise, especially if it is an extraordinary claim.

"There is an invisible all-powerful entity that created the universe and inspired a book about himself, laying down special rules for people to follow &c. &c." is such an extraordinary claim.

1) I hate Christianity because it is a religion that destroys knowledge of everything, holds back progress, has needlessly killed millions, it's original rules (any Christian cannot deny the Old Testament, if you do you are saying that the words of God were wrong, thus he is not perfect) support slavery, blood sacrifice, rape, pillaging and murder; it is a religion based on fear to gain members (that "OMG, you're going to burn in hell!" crap, burning 'witches', the Crusades); in addition to spreading fear, it also spreads hatred (the destruction of the Tower of Babel and thus the splintering of man's unity); it teaches mental suicide with it's restrictions on everything. I don't like Islam because it is even more violent and fanatical. I read a two page introduction and found a massive flaw "Allah has given us free will", "Allah has written our destinys".

2) The Riddle of someone or another, I forget his name:
If God cannot stop evil but tries to, he is not omnipotent
If God can stop evil but choses not to, he is malevolent
If God can neither stop evil and does not attempt to, then why call him God

Any who says, "Oh but all this misery is a test for those who are pure of faith", why would a benevolent God need to test us with such terrible things?

I personally believe God does exist, I think he's an being that wishes our destruction and ensalvement. It is also because he cannot be proven not to exist, thus he must.

You still haven`t addressed any of the points against your argument.

As for your last paragraph, well, it is pathetic, IMO.

Here is my response:

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

No proof that God doesn't exist??? Well there's also no proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't, but do you believe in him?? The reasoning is dodgy, the sentiment, correct, there may well be a God, (that certainly can't be proven scientifically) but the fact that every culture discovered has some manner of religion, belief in something greater than themselves would suggest that God cannot be easily dismissed. I advise people to try meditation a few times, (which requires no pre-existing belief in something greater than yourself) and then consider how you feel on the issue of a "God".

1) What problems do people have with Christianity and why?

2) Why people believe that the stance that God does not exist is any more stable than the stance that he does?

Nope, you've got it all wrong. I can speak for myself and say that I haven't got a problem with Christianity. Christians of the prosyletising kind I hate. Otherwise I haven't even got a problem with christians. As long as somebody doesn't get up in my face with their religion and try to treat me like a baby or a degenerate, I'm fine with it. In other words, they have to be respectful of my feelings in return.

As for the existence of God, I couldn't prove it either way, but I lean in the direction of existence over non-existence, without giving ridiculous attributes to an entity like hair color, gender, yada yada yada.

to (mis)quote the movie Dogma,
"Christians took a great idea and ruined it by building a belief system around it"

hence the ideals of living a good life that Christanity stands for is great why did they have to make it a religion?!

No proof that God doesn't exist??? Well there's also no proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't, but do you believe in him?? The reasoning is dodgy, the sentiment, correct, there may well be a God, (that certainly can't be proven scientifically) but the fact that every culture discovered has some manner of religion, belief in something greater than themselves would suggest that God cannot be easily dismissed. I advise people to try meditation a few times, (which requires no pre-existing belief in something greater than yourself) and then consider how you feel on the issue of a "God".

What about the fact that we are all humans, and thus share the same mindset about things that are unknown, and will all try to make the world more understandable?
Earlier in history, mankind hardly knew anything about the world outside the cave, and wasn't exactly in a position to use science. So they 'made up' gods, all over the planet, because humans were all over the planet.

Any who says, "Oh but all this misery is a test for those who are pure of faith", why would a benevolent God need to test us with such terrible things?


I bet cancer beats an algebra test any day. :D

Firstly, sorry for reviving this thread, I had other things to do than check it for responses yesterday.

You still haven`t addressed any of the points against your argument.

As for your last paragraph, well, it is pathetic, IMO.

Here is my response:
I haven'y read any of the posts, so how could I argue against the points? I stated my opinion and backed it up with 'facts' from the Bible itself. Want the proof? http://www.evilbible.com/

My last paragraph is proven throughout the Old Testament.

Prokhor Zakharov is a fictional character, much as that statement is true. SMAC was also a kick ass game. Also, my last statement was taken almost exactly from the same quote you claimed is against it.

Righteousnesous, I meditate and I have felt things as well. This is precisely why I based my relief on something other than Christianity, because Christianity has destroyed these practices.

Hakartopia, that was the original meaning for religion, to explain things that we could not at the time.

3) I think the idea behind their beliefs being encoded into law is merely a democratic one rarther than religious. They see (in America) that they are by far the largest religious group and therefore they should see some of their requests granted. Its not like they want every school in the country to do the Eucruist every Friday, I think its more prohibitation of what offends their beliefs rather than enforcing what pleases them.

(and from another post)

You missed my point. Christians only want to outlaw things that offend their religion, not make their religion mandotory by law. Muslims often do both in their states.

Which means you want to make people act as though they were Christians by force of law if not force of belief. Do you really not see how this is forcing your religion on somebody? How would you feel if for some reason the majority of the nation decided to suddenly become really strict Buddhist and start passing legislation that banned the eating of meat? Wouldn't you feel that they were forcing their moral values on you?

christians feel they have to go and convert people because, the bible aays to so and also we believe that jesus is the only way to heaven because he died for our sins to save us so that one day, when we die, or at the second coming, we can be reunited with God the father which can only happen if youve accepted christ as savior.

i just noticed that someone mentioned that carbon dating is not flawed, here is someting to ponder:

we all know that Mt. St. Helens erupted in the seattle washington area in 1980 (correct me if i'm wrong) a little more than 24 years ago. recently when carbon dating tests were performed on rocks around the site they said that the rocks were 2 billion years old...when we know that theyve only be around for 24ish years

also it takes millions of years for wood to become petrified... there were trees around mount saint helens that were petrified instantly 24 years ago, that when they were carbon dated, said they were 1 million years old.

christians feel they have to go and convert people because, the bible aays to so and also we believe that jesus is the only way to heaven because he died for our sins to save us so that one day, when we die, or at the second coming, we can be reunited with God the father which can only happen if youve accepted christ as savior.
I believe that your Heaven is a terrible place devoid of emotion and caring, ruled by parasitic beings who feed of your soul. I believe that the 'saviour of humanity' is not Jesus or God. I believe that Paradise awaits me and not you. This doesn't mean I go out and say, "OMG become a Satanist and be redeemed for your ignorance!". I keep it to myself, I on a regular basis clash with your beliefs, but I never tell you to change, I offer facts. Christians should learn to mind their own business and shut up about their beliefs, even if their Bible says so, they have no right to impinge on other people's beliefs with their own.

i just noticed that someone mentioned that carbon dating is not flawed, here is someting to ponder:

we all know that Mt. St. Helens erupted in the seattle washington area in 1980 (correct me if i'm wrong) a little more than 24 years ago. recently when carbon dating tests were performed on rocks around the site they said that the rocks were 2 billion years old...when we know that theyve only be around for 24ish years

also it takes millions of years for wood to become petrified... there were trees around mount saint helens that were petrified instantly 24 years ago, that when they were carbon dated, said they were 1 million years old.

Simple Geology.
To start, the rocks were 2 billion years old anyway.
Think of it this way, if I fill a bottle of water, and say the moment I close the top of the bottle we start counting it's age, I leave it like that for 2 weeks, then freeze it for 2 weeks, and finnally I thaw it out, how old chemicly (Starting from when the bottle is closed) is the water?
The magma comming from Mt.St.Helens was the same chemical structure before it came near the surface as it was after it cooled on the surface. Carbon 14 dating goes off of the age of the chemical structure.
Likewise, the pertified wood, it was petrified from the volcanic dust, and not the '"normal" process of petrification. The dust itself is 1 million years old. And since the dust covered the wood in such a way, and suddenly, the wood basicly absorbed the dust.