I agree that uninvited door-to-door anything is tacky and an invasion of privacy. However, I have always taken a different approach to Mormon missionaries. I am an American living in the Dominican Repubolic. The missionaries are young Americans of college age. When they knock on my door (2 or 3 times) per year I always invite them in for a cold drink and small talk. However, I make it painfully clear from the beginning that I won't get into religion with them. So far, 100% have been cool about it. Mormons may be delusional but they are polite and grateful.
I know exactly what you mean.
I live in Kansas and we've gotten a few door-to-door evangelists. Mostly, though, I've managed to miss or sleep through their visits. I only realize they were there later when I retrieve their pamphlet that was stuck in my door. Most of them were harmless -- invitations to their church services, or a nice instructional pamphlet on "How to Get to Heaven from Kansas" (shockingly, it does not begin with "take I-70 to Topeka").
The only one that I found offensive was from a local baptist church. It was a pamphlet entitled "Atheists and Humanists believe in Miracles!" It spouted a whole lot of really really stupid arguments that abiogenesis, evolution, and a couple of other things were actually not possible naturally, and therefore must be miracles that we believed in. Then, in an astounding leap of logic that I don't think I could duplicate, it somehow equated atheism with Satanism... something about how if we don't worship god, we worship secular things, which are false gods, which we know are actually the devil.
I wasn't sure whether to be offended or to laugh uproariously. I managed both.
My wife used to love getting a knock from a door-to-door religious salesman. She would always think "I've caught one, heh heh." More than once she has sent them scurrying off in fear and terror. And she never yelled or got angry, she would just assault them with clear logic and, man, does that scare them. One was a Mormon with a young black kid in tow and she ignored the guy and started talking to the kid about how Mormons used to feel about black people. His eyes kept getting bigger and bigger and he kept asking the guy over and over "Is that true?" the guy couldn't answer. Finally the guy just grabbed the kid by the arm and ran off, kid dangling.
I can't talk to them, I fly into a rage too quickly. These days I won't even say anything, I just slam the door on them.
My view is that these people show zero respect for my beliefs when they trespass on my property, so guess what? I respond in, shall we say, vivid language and it ain't pretty. But boy do I feel good about it. They scuttle off and don't reappear.
I usually don't get in shouting matches, but I try to be as unpleasant as possible. One time a Mormon guy came to my door with an about 12 kid with him. I told him he could screw up his life as much as he wanted but that he didn't have the right to screw up the life of that kid. I was indirectly talking to the kid, and the guy left with him quickly.
Another tactic I used once while I was waiting in my car for a friend in a supermarket and was approached by 3 early twenties, two guys and a girl. I asked them about their sex lives. If any of them had screwed one of the others or just wanted to. One of the guys lost his cool and wanted to hit me, but the girl held him back.
I think irritation, if not outright anger, *is* an appropriate response. By knocking on your door, the evangelist has assumed some, if not all, of the following:
1. My time is worthless.
2. Whatever they're interrupting is far less important than their message.
3. If I did have a religious belief (not), I could be swayed from it by a 5 minute visit from a stranger.
4. I must not have heard what they have to say before. Or, if I did, I didn't understand it. Or the other person didn't say it right, because otherwise I'd already be a convert.
You've got to admit, those are some pretty unpleasant assumptions to make about a stranger. It also raises my ire when I realize that they didn't actually make any of those assumptions because they don't think. They're just programmed to go around "spreading the good word" or drumming up tithes for the Mormons. What a waste of a brain, a life and my time.
I must be all big and scary, because the last time I had to answer the door for missionaries was on December 31, 1999. Of course, I do live in a more rural area, so going door-to-door requires some effort.
A few weeks ago, I was eating lunch in an Indian restaurant that had just come under new management. The owner got into a conversation with us (two atheists and a pretty secular Christian) about his Sikh religion. The funny thing was that we atheists were bringing up points of history and dogma about his religion that he didn't expect. I'm not sure what he thought, but we finally had to beg off with the excuse that we all had meetings to attend.
In his book "The Four Agreements", Ruiz states that one of the agreements is "not to take anything personally" so when the door bell is rung by a door-to-door "religion" saleman, just say "no thank you" and the problem, if any, should be over. I can't understand why people get so upset. If you are the type who gets "steamed", then take the time to use the "no prostelizers welcome" sign. The final question is "is the objection to religious door-to-door types" or EVERYONE who goes door-to-door. If you would open your door to the kid selling chocolate bars for their "club" then you should have the ability to treat all "visitors" equally, or "disconnect your doorbell" and hang up a sign that says "If I don't know you, don't knock!"
I think one of the agreements is that you don't invade another person's life without good reason. When kids come to the door selling something I don't slam the door on them because they have been duped by evil adults. I say no and close the door, even if they are still talking.
The religious salesmen all know each other so if you get a bad reputation they will stop showing up.
Answering the door naked works every time.
Ok, Bob. That was funny. I just hope to "God" you're joking. If it turns out to be Girl Scouts selling cookies...you're in big trouble. 
Perhaps one of the solutions I used in my business life, and sometimes used at home, would provide some satisfaction to those who don't like the invasions. I would welcome the invasion (especially in my business for the "I was just in your neighbourhood" saleman with my "message" which would be a book of tickets for one of my son's sports activities and would only give the salesman the time of day if he first purchased at least one book of tickets. Salesmen learned they had to make appointments.
Hi
Your entry statment says 'breaking free from irrational belief'. With respect, what do you mean by this?
What, exactly, do you mean by rationalism? Plato would have argued that rationalism is about perceiving reality through the mind - that reality can only be really known through the mind - not through experience or the senses. Berkeley argued that we don't even know for sure that what we perceive with our senses actually exists at all - putting into the doubt the whole material world including science. And even if you accept that the senses can be trusted - what about the 'irrational' nature of science - take, for example, string theory that modern scientists are taking very seriously: that there are more than 3 dimensions! If rationalism is about perceiving things in time and space in a logical, coherent way - well, then, modern science is suggesting that we may have to think again.
Therefore what do you mean 'irrational [belief]'.
And what do you mean by 'belief'. You believe there is no God (I presume). Just as others (I, for example) believe there is a God. Neither of us can prove or disprove God's existence.
Lastly, what do you mean by 'breaking free?' Believing in God and accepting the Christian message has brought me joy about 10,000 times (no, more) more so than before I took Christianity seriously. It has, also, brought me about 10,000 times more peace. And I get on with people (believers and non-believers) about 10,000 times more than before. Why should I want to 'break free' from Christianity.
Kevin
You use the word 'religious salesman' but I think the word 'salesman' is an incorrect analogy.
At the end of the day a 'salesperson' - and most of us are sales people in one shape or another in our everyday lives - sells things, primarily, to make money and survive (there is soft sell and hard sell - but at the end of the day it is about money).
But a religious person is not trying to sell you something so that he / she gets money or something else in return. These people come to your doors in order to bring you the happiness that they have experienced through religion. Wouldn't it be selfish of people if they held onto something good for themselves and didn't share that with others.
If I find lots of bottles of fine vintage wine in the cellar, I want to share that with friends - not just drink it all on my own.
Christians spread the word because they want others to experience the happiness they have experienced. Being human and imperfect, Christians, like everyone else are good at botching things up. When they pass on the 'Good News' they do it in a shrill / uninspiring way. That is because they (including me) are imperfect. That is why I say, people should just give Christians more of a chance. Try and think of where they are coming from. Christians, like everyone else are self-righteous at times, impatient, and so on. But have some patience, tolerance and understanding.
At the end of the day they come to bring you 3 things - the 3 three things that Christianity is all about (and what all human beings want, no matter whether they believe in God or not): Joy, Peace and Love. I just wish people would think about what Christianity is really about and why people really knock on your door, instead of getting all embarassed by the sudden and personal nature of their encounter with you (I mean people, in general, not 'you' personall ..).
'When they pass on the 'Good News' they do it in a shrill / uninspiring way' - sorry, I meant to say 'when they pass on the 'Good News' they - sometimes - do it in a shrill / uninspiring way.
Joshua: I wish people would think about what Christianity really is all about too - hatred and ignorance.
How would you feel if Atheists were stopping at your door every other week? I doubt your feeling toward door to door salesmen (and trying to sell something is not always about money) would be the same.
Kevin
'I wish people would think about what Christianity really is all about too - hatred and ignorance' this is a big statement.
With respect, you offer no explanation or evidence of this.
Christianity says - very cleary - that it is all about love.
Jesus says very clearly that the greatest commandment is to love God and neighbour.
And St Paul says that you can have faith to move mountains but if you have no love then faith is useless.
This is evidence that diametrically opposes your statement.
Christianity isn't about perfection in human beings (except, Christ, of course). Christians do bad things. I do bad things. But that doesn't take away from what Christ and St Paul say very clearly in the Bible.
And just as Christians do bad things, so do non-believers. We do bad things because we are humans. Christ says that it is a sin to do bad things. That we must love others. That we must show compassion to people such as the Good Samaratin did. That we must forgive others as in the Prodigal Son. Christianity is about Love. What is love? Have already given a couple of examples. Corinthians 13 is another good example. But, above all, the various sacrifices of Christ, and the biggest of all, on the cross.
But it takes a life-time of prayer and living out the Christian life for the Christian to really understand what love is (not that non-believers are not capable of love - but the point I am trying to make is that Love is something far greater than feelings or affection - things like that).
Anyway to come back to the original point (apologies for straying) Christianity is about Love. I have tried to present some evidence for this.
'Ignorance' is another big statement. Please provide us with evidence / with an argument why you believe this.
Joshua: I couldn't care less what what you think the bible says, it also says genocide is OK and so is slavery.
What I care about is what Christians DO. They hate gays, and even liberals, and prefer to be ignorant about science, especially evolution.
The hatred and ignorance is incredibly obvious. If you can't see it then it shows how you participate in it then lie and say you believe in love.
I see evangelism as simply arguing for a point of view. If arguing for a point of view is so bad, why do you blog?
JK
Joshua, "Christians spread the word because they want others to experience the happiness they have experienced."
Xians aren't sharing happiness, they are sharing their fear and paranoia. I have met happy people who are xian, but I have never met a person who was happy because they were xian.
Most people say they are xian because of community pressure. They are afraid they will be excluded from the community if they don't say and do the "right" things.
Kevin
'I couldn't care less what what you think the bible says'
- but that is an irrational thing to say. The Bible (whether you believe in it or not - whether you are a believer or not) is evidence of what Christians believe in - what it is that inspires them.
'it also says genocide is OK and so is slavery' - if you don't care about the evidence I produce, then why do you attempt to produce evidence of your own? Regarding 'genocide' I don't know what passage you refer to. Regarding 'slavery' - there were very distinct forms of slavery. An historian (a non believing historian could point this out to you). Christianity has never been about bringing perfection to this world in one big swoop. It can't. There will always be injustice. The Bible says that masters must treat their slaves with dignity. But that doesn't mean the Bible endoreses slavery. It would take centuries before Christianity became strong enough to oppose slavery. And who were the first great opponents of slavery? They were quaker Christians. They were christians such as Wilberforce, and so on.
'What I care about is what Christians DO. They hate gays, and even liberals' - but this is such as black and white thing to say. I am a Christian. I don't hate gays. I don't hate liberals. There are lots of none-believers who hate gays and liberals. To hate anyone in Christianity is the ultimate sin. It goes against completely against the main commandment of the Bible which is:
LOVE God and neighbour (FACT not my personal opinion).
Any 'Christian' who hates another person whether they be gay or not, liberal or not, cannot be Christian in that instant of hating.
'and prefer to be ignorant about science, especially evolution' - What? Some of the greatest scientists of the past were Christians. In the last 100 years or so, two great scientists were Christians.
Mendel - the father of modern genetics - was a Catholic priest!
Planck - one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century - widely considered to be the founder of quantum theory was a Christian who openly criticized atheists as being too caught up in symbols.
'The hatred and ignorance is incredibly obvious' - of human beings in general, yes. Let's not forget the hatred and ignorance of atheists such as those that existed in Communist Russia Marx: 'Religion is the opium of the masses' - and boy were religious people persecuted in Communist Russia.
Bernarda
With respect, I don't know who / what Xian is so I cannot comment.
Joshua, you say you became happier after embracing Christianity. I became happier after abandoning it. So, when a Christian wants to share the "good news" with me, I really have no use for it.
However, if it makes you happy to believe it, then bully for you. Don't worry about trying to "save" the rest of us though.
Joshua said:
"What, exactly, do you mean by rationalism? Plato would have argued that rationalism is about perceiving reality through the mind - that reality can only be really known through the mind - not through experience or the senses. Berkeley argued that we don't even know for sure that what we perceive with our senses actually exists at all -"
This is a brain-muddling argument, made to create self-doubt. It applies equally to the religious bullcrap that you have been spoon fed, and will be spoon fed from cradle to grave. Here is the key to unlock this box: it makes no difference. If you think it does, light a match and hold it to your hand and try not to be burned. Do it often enough, and your friends will have you commited. Reality has a way of imposing itself, no matter if it's as it seems, or we all live in a bowl of shaving cream.
" - putting into the doubt the whole material world including science. And even if you accept that the senses can be trusted - what about the 'irrational' nature of science - take, for example, string theory that modern scientists are taking very seriously: that there are more than 3 dimensions!"
There are. There are at least four. Time is the fourth, and Einstein and others have the math to prove it. Nothing can exist for no time at all.
YOU FAIL.
If that's not enough, thinking of solid objects in three dimensions (length, width, height) is a very linear (two-dimensional) way of looking at things. Moreover, all dimensions below "#4" are imaginary, not being able to exist on their own.
"If rationalism is about perceiving things in time and space in a logical, coherent way - well, then, modern science is suggesting that we may have to think again."
We always have to think again, when new information is uncovered. Unless, that is, some clowns steeped in dogma make us drink Hemlock.
"Therefore what do you mean 'irrational [belief]'."
Death is life, down (burial) is up ("Heaven") "First causes" had to come "ex machina" from a Deus whose very complexity defies the "first cause" and complexity arguments. How's that just for starters?
"And what do you mean by 'belief'. You believe there is no God (I presume). Just as others (I, for example) believe there is a God. Neither of us can prove or disprove God's existence."
Statistics are on my side. I just believe in one less mythological deity than you do. Have you ever noticed how hard all the entertainment media sell the idea of superstition, afterlife, and demons? Or, do you just take it for granted, like electricity? (ever flip a light switch in a blackout?)
"Lastly, what do you mean by 'breaking free?' ....why would I want to 'break free' from Christianity."
Joshua
When you realize that the pinnacle of the hierarcical pyramid is a sham, then you see the scam. The scam artists are the clerics that have been pulling this gag since before recorded time began. Of course you have
Tommy
I said I became 10,000 times happier. Not just happier (and I believe there is nothing special about me - I believe everyone is equal in the eyes of God).
Do you think people have a duty to pass on a good thing to others if they think it is good? Or should they just keep it for themselves?
Christianity is first and foremost about loving God. Love involves 'knowing' and being 'happy' and being at 'peace.' This is what a personal relationship with God brings in this life. It brings fulfillment. And ultimate fulfillment in the next life. That is what salvation is.
Yes, Christians fear God. But God isn't some Roman pagan, tyricanal god playing tricks on us. God is what is what is normal and right. We trust in Him. We pray to Him. But our first response to Him is to love Him and to be happy and at peace in His presence (as it says in the Bible).
At the end of the day no human being unless they are mad can escape fear. Every human has fear. Even hardened atheists fear things in life (Philip Larkin - well-known English atheist - was meant to be a gibbering wreck just before he died - and Somerset Maugham, another English aetheist cr**ped his pants just before he died, through fear). Lots of atheists say there is nothing to fear. But this is bravado. Every human being has fear whether they are believers or not. It is just that Christianity says that no man should fear another. Only God. And we only fear God so that we don't stop being in His wonderful presence.
Again, from my personal experience of being a Christian is that it is 10,000 times better than being a non-believer (from my personal experience of not taking God very seriously).
Actually, no. I change that. Being a Christian is a million times better than being a non-believer. A million times more joyful. A million times more peaceful. A million times more exciting. A million times more interesting. And a million times more fulfilling. And I am not exaggerating. I am being perfectly serious.
So, yes, Christians fear God. But we pray to God, and he tempers that fear. He, also, showers people who fear Him with blessings, joys and peace, and much more. We feel fulfilled. Not full fulfillment. This world is not paradise. But He shows us glimpses of what it is like - a million times more than what I experienced when I wasn't a proper believer.
And, lastly, Christians live in the great hope that true fulfillment will come in the next life.
Atheism offers no kind of hope. Limited happiness in this life. And after life: nothing. Nada.
The last part of my comment got cut off somehow.
Of course you have a fine religion. The clerics have had millenia to perfect the speil, absorb the competition, and hand it down to their successors. They have been plying this trade since before the beginning of recorded history. You have been lied to. You have been hypnotized. Your very happiness now depends in part to believing this lie. Odds are, you will never be free of it.
"And, lastly, Christians live in the great hope that true fulfillment will come in the next life."
"Someday, all this will be yours!"
"What? The curtains?"
Biggest empty promise ever sold, at no cost to the manufacturer.
Breakersline
'This is a brain-muddling argument, made to create self-doubt' - what do you mean? With respect, Plato wasn't the only great rationalist philosopher. Western philosophy breaks down roughly into two important groups: the rationalists and the empiricists. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza were all rationalists.
Are you suggesting that rationalism - that Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza and others were guilty of something negative in some important way?
At the end of the day all philosophy, whether it is rationalism or empiricism is open to doubt. Are you suggesting that all western philosophy is negative in some important way?
'that you have been spoon fed' - with respect how do you know anything about me? I was educated by monks. And monks are famous for questioning everything. We were encouraged to question our faith. Not in a negative way. But in a way that brings truer understanding.
'If you think it does, light a match and hold it to your hand and try not to be burned. Do it often enough, and your friends will have you commited' -I really don't think the great philosopher Berkeley (Berkely university was named after him) was suggesting we should burn our hands ....The real point he was making is that we shouldn't take materialism at face value. Since the time of Berkeley the universe appears to be less - not more - rational than we thought. String theory is a good example of this.
'We always have to think again, when new information is uncovered. Unless, that is, some clowns steeped in dogma make us drink Hemlock' - the point is that atheists say 'with time science will answer everything' but time and knowledge is proving that we understand less and less, and that the universe appears just more mysterious than we could ever have imagined. When it comes to the big questions, science takes us to the top of a big mountain, to where we come across another mountain 10 times taller than the last, and so on.
'Have you ever noticed how hard all the entertainment media sell the idea of superstition, afterlife, and demons?' - have you ever noticed the way atheistic Communistic Russia tried to crush religion ('Religion is the opium of the masses') with force and more. At the end of the day, there is no debate over here in Europe, that the media is broadly non-religious.
'When you realize that the pinnacle of the hierarcical pyramid is a sham, then you see the scam' - I have already provided you with evidence from my own life - that my own life is 10,000 better than before I took God seriously.
'The scam artists are the clerics that have been pulling this gag since before recorded time began' - are you suggesting that St Peter, St Paul and others (who lived in apostolic poverty and were executed) were rich and powerful in some way? Are you suggesting that people such as Francis of Assisi lived in great opulence. It was people such as Peter, Paul and Francis who were the important leaders an
This is a strategy I have tried...Peep Show Witnessing:
The door-to-door religious wackos knock. I open and am dressed in nothing but a bra and panties. They stare while pretending to simultaneously look away from the cleavage AND deliver their bewildering godspeak. I keep a straight face for about 10 seconds. I crack up. They manage to come back to the friendly nudist atheist. Biblical modesty??? Bullsh*t!!! ROFLMAO!!!!
Breakersline
'The clerics have had millenia to perfect the speil' - and what's in it for them? Why would the first mortal Christian leaders (i.e St Peter and St Paul) spend their time spell-binding people when they lived in aposotlic poverty and ended up escaping various dangers to end up being executed - the first of many Christians who lived in aposotlic poverty and who ended up dying for the faith.
- your claim just doesn't make sense.
'absorb the competition, and hand it down to their successors'
'You have been hypnotized' - that's a big accusation to make! How do you know you haven't been hypnotized into non-belief or anything else for that matter.
'Your very happiness now depends in part to believing this lie' - with respect, I have already said I am about a million times more happy. You can say what you like but you can't take that away from me! And it is an on-going spiritual experience I am talking about. Not just knowledge about the Bible.
"What? The curtains?" - well, of course, you believe that - you are an atheist. But as I said, already, it is not just about complete fulfillment in the next life. It, also, involves happiness in this life (happiness on a scale of about 1,000,000 to one).
'Biggest empty promise ever sold' - well, I have never paid anyone for it. And the most famous evanegelists in history lived in apostolic poverty. They never got paid in money for their work. And not only did they not get paid in money for it, but they, also, received abuse and persecution as well. So, with respect, what you say just doesn't make sense - just seems very subjective, and that you are creating analogies that are not just off the mark, but completely misleading.
Come on Joshua, don't hold back, just come out and say your life is a quadrillion times better!
But just because it makes you feel better does not make it true. And I am too busy living my own life to worry about what will happen to me after I die. I am more concerned about how my loved ones will carry on without me in the event I should die prematurely.
And as an aside, if you recall from the Book of Matthew, the three Magi follow a star and then appear at the court of Herod inquiring about the newborn king. After leaving Herod and finding Jesus, the Magi are told in a dream to not go back to Herod and Joseph is told to leave as well. Consequently, Herod supposedly massacres all of the children under the age of 2 in Bethlehem.
Now, if the lives of children were really precious to god, he could have warned the Magi about Herod before they went to see him. If Herod never encounters the Magi inquiring about the newborn king, then no massacre in Bethlehem. In other words, god allowed innocent children to be murdered on purpose! Some god you worship.
Barbie, where do you live? I want to knock on your door and pretend to be a proselytizer! 
BarbieBrains
Christians can have sex too you know. Who knows ... maybe the coy Christian is having the best sex in town with his wife.
Joshua - when you mention Karl Marx you are most likely thinking of "Lenin's interpretation of Marx". It was the "religious opiate" that made the people maleable by the "Lenins" . . . they had been taught not to "think" by a zealous Christian church. How many realize that the Communist Manifesto (now more than 170 years old) spent more time on the "emancipation of women" and "discontinuing the practice of using child labour" than any concern over "religion"? His manifesto really upset the "western world capitalists" who were profiting quite handsomely by "enslaving women" and "using child labour" (and with the church's blessings and complicity). Have you at least read the Communist Manifesto? It was a far more "loving" document than the bible! But, then again, I have asked the same question about the CM of more than 50 "Christian" objectors to the CM, to find out they only knew about it by reputation . . . a reputation that was "formulated" by corporate-backed religious "authorities". If anyone wants to read the CM, its available on the web.
Nothing quite like a post on evangelism to bring the evangelical Christians out of the woodwork. Enjoy your visit, Joshua. Perhaps you'll learn something while you're here.
Tommy
'just come out and say your life is a quadrillion times better' - I can do better than that. But I am going to borrow from the great bard himself to suggest something of what it is like (if you don't like these lines, then blame Shakespeare):
- the clouds methought did open up and show riches ready to drop upon me that when I wak'd I cried to dream gain (The Tempest).
'But just because it makes you feel better does not make it true' - I never suggested I could prove God's existence. Just as an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God.
'And I am too busy living my own life' - you mean, you are too busy for the peace, joy, feeling of fulfillment that the Christian God brings? That doesn't make sense to me.
'I am more concerned about how my loved ones will carry on without me in the event I should die prematurely' - and Christians are no different, here, to you. Christians are human beings, you know, not robots!
'Now, if the lives of children were really precious to god, he could have warned the Magi about Herod before they went to see him' - I don't understand why we have to suffer. I suffer too, you know. All I can say, in some sort of response, is don't forget the spiritual side of people. We might suffer physically in this life. As well as emotionally. But at the end of the day it is our spiritual welfare and happiness that God is ultimately concerned about.
- but can you not think of anything positive about the Bible? Can you not think about anything positive that Christians do for others? Can you not think of any occassions where people's lives have been transformed in amazing ways? Can you not think of anything in life that suggests that there could be a benevolent being at the source of it all?
Vjack
'Enjoy your visit, Joshua. Perhaps you'll learn something while you're here' - thanks. I hope I do learn something. And I hope you learn something new too!
"At the end of the day all philosophy, whether it is rationalism or empiricism is open to doubt. Are you suggesting that all western philosophy is negative in some important way?"
Yes, and that's called agnosticism. My argument goes to motive. What part of what I said did you not understand? What you are doing now is tangental argumentation. You are either unable to, or incapable of, addressing that which directly challenges the rationalizations of your comfortable delusion.
"I was educated by monks. And monks are famous for questioning everything. We were encouraged to question our faith. Not in a negative way. But in a way that brings truer understanding."
Of course not in a negative way. The purpose here is to find satisfactory answers that satisfy the closed-loop delusion. "Answers" indeed!
"the point is that atheists say 'with time science will answer everything' but time and knowledge is proving that we understand less and less, and that the universe appears just more mysterious than we could ever have imagined."
This is an untruth. This is a religious prevarication. It is also beside the point. The point is that religion will murder to protect dogmatic ignorance and its position of authority.
"'When you realize that the pinnacle of the hierarcical pyramid is a sham, then you see the scam' - I have already provided you with evidence from my own life - that my own life is 10,000 better than before I took God seriously."
You have proved that your delusion is a very happy one indeed, and you are happy within it. Beyond that, you have proved nothing. I too take god seriously. God the mind-virus, that is. I am not denying the reality of faith-based belief. The edifice upon which it is built is, in my considered opinion, imaginary, and the product of a lucrative hoax.
" - are you suggesting that St Peter, St Paul and others (who lived in apostolic poverty and were executed) were rich and powerful in some way?"
No, they are the "Dexter and Birdies" of the scam. Why do you think they were sainted? They are the perfect examplse of suffering and persecution for the more masochistic of the believers. All part of the sales pitch, Bub.
Joshua,
Christianity is a coping mechanism. A drug-induced happiness is still drug-induced. I am parenting a ten-year-old daughter BEYOND belief. I would not LIE to her to keep her happy. She will face the same doubts, anguish, fear, anxiety and mortal dread that is part of the human condition. Escaping your condition is only met by crawling back into the womb...a desire for the womb. I choose dread, anxiety, fear, and doubt ANY day over delusion. This is not bravado. It just IS. As a female raised in the Third World, I found Christianity to be ABHORRENT and grotesque and enslaving. I refused to listen to the mad rants of genital-free males. There is no dignity in a religion that reduces the female to a reproductive function. This is the true meaning of bestiality.
anton kozlik
With respect. I have no idea where you are going with your post. All I was doing was quoting from the CM as an example of Marx's anti-religious views. You don't doubt the quote or that Marx was anti-religious. And as we know from history Communist Russia suppressed religion and religious people in a brutal way (just as Communists did during the Spanish Civil War and elsehwere).
And religious people, also, do brutal things. The point I am making is that both religious and atheists do terrible, brutal things. Christianity says it is wrong to be brutal. It is wrong to do violence. It is wrong to hate. But Christians and atheists do these things because of human nature. That is the point I was making.
but can you not think of anything positive about the Bible? Can you not think about anything positive that Christians do for others? Can you not think of any occassions where people's lives have been transformed in amazing ways?
Yeah, the Bible does have a handful of worthwhile things in it, but nothing that can't be found in any other religious text.
I don't deny that Christians do positive things for other people. And so do non-Christians, so what's your point?
People's lives are transformed by all kinds of experiences. My life was transformed for the better when I realized that the god of the Bible did not exist.
Can you not think of anything in life that suggests that there could be a benevolent being at the source of it all?
No, I can't. The universe behaves exactly as we should expect if there was no benevolent god intervening in our affairs. Diseases, war, and natural disasters kill good people and bad people.
I don't rule out the possibility that there might be some higher intelligence in the universe, but I find it hard to believe that any entity powerful and intelligent enough to create this vast universe in which our planet is such a small speck is overly concerned with the mundane affairs of human beings. It does not seem very likely to me that our lives here on this Earth are just a testing ground so that some supreme being can decide whether or not we will spend an afterlife in either perpetual happiness or eternal suffering, and that his primary criteria for making that decision is whether or not we believe that he impregnated a virgin Jewish teenage girl in the Galilee some 2,000 years ago and that the superboy who resulted from the union performed miracles, died for my "sins" and rose from the dead.
Tommy: For you, I'd be dressed as a nun. LOL!!!!
Joshua: Coy Christian??? You are sooo naive!!!! Dude, what planet do you live on?? B.S. They are even more lascivious than the regulars at the honky-tonk raunch houses I used to frequent before I became a committed nudist atheist. Christian sex?? Now that made me LAUGH!!!! Not much fun when Gawd is watching. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Barbiebrains
'Christianity is a coping mechanism'- you mean to say you don't have a coping mechamism? Everyone has a coping mechanism. Alcoholics for drink. Vain people for vanity.Overweight people for food. For others it is sex, their career, that they are the centre of attention, and so on and so forth. Part of the human condition is that we all try and fill that desperate void with something. But we Christians believe that only God can fill the void in any fulfilling way.
'A drug-induced happiness is still drug-induced' - I took dope a few times during university. And all I can say is that being a Christian is still a million times better in feeling than taking any drugs .. Try it.
'I would not LIE to her to keep her happy' - nor would I (I hope not, at least). What are you suggesting?
'Escaping your condition is only met by crawling back into the womb' - you really think that St Peter and St Paul (some of the first Christians) were 'crawling back into the womb' when they trooped across Palestine and Europe preaching the Good News in apostolic poverty, and being abused and persecuted - and finally, ending up, being executed? You think they were 'crawling back into the womb?'
'and doubt ANY day over delusion' - with respect: it is a big claim to suggest that you are not deluded and that others like me are! Shakepeare wrote two plays about delusion / madness. Was Hamlet so mad? Was Kind Lear so mad? What is madness?
'There is no dignity in a religion that reduces the female to a reproductive function' - I don't know exactly what incident / incidents you refer to. I agree with you. But please, don't generalize! Don't paint everyone with the same brush just because some people in a community act in a certain way.
'This is the true meaning of bestiality' - and, don't forget, there are lots of non-believers who act in beastly ways too. Please don't confuse human nature with religion.
Tommy: For you, I'd be dressed as a nun. LOL!!!!
Ooooh! Kinky! I like that!
Joshua - I believe the only point I am trying to make is that a "religious population" is less able to deal with the corruption they find in their midst. They have been softened up or "seduced". In fact, some of my "religious associates" do not think they need to do anything about the despots in their midst because those despots will have to "answer to God". How about thinking of what "history" will have to say about the last 8 years in American politics where the "religious right" has propped up perhaps the worst "presidency" in US history . . . and they are proud of it! Usually, stupid people keep quite else they get discovered. What has happened in our "free speach" world is that the "ignorant" want equal time on our world stage so the extremists, both Religious and Atheist are shouting at the top of their opposing mountains. The point is, few of them are making any sense.
And all I can say is that being a Christian is still a million times better in feeling than taking any drugs .. Try it.
And I can say that scuba diving or kayaking is a million times better in feeling than taking drugs.
'You are sooo naive!!!! Dude, what planet do you live on?? B.S. They are even more lascivious than the regulars at the honky-tonk raunch houses I used to frequent before I became a committed nudist atheist. Christian sex?? Now that made me LAUGH!!!! Not much fun when Gawd is watching. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!'
- what are you saying that Christians do have good sex or not?! I don't follow at all ..
anton
'How about thinking of what "history" will have to say about the last 8 years in American politics where the "religious right" has propped up perhaps the worst "presidency" in US history'
Ah at least, I can agree with someone on this board.
Anton.
There are loads of Christian fundamenalists who scare the living daylights out of me. I have spent far more time debating with the likes of them than with atheists such as yourself. I have lots of non-believing friends who I really like / love. I don't know why I do, I just do (just as there are lots of believers I like being with - not necessarily because they are believers but because they are just good company to be with).
Don't know where I am going with this post ... Just glad I agree with an atheist over something!
'Yeah, the Bible does have a handful of worthwhile things in it, but nothing that can't be found in any other religious text' - Christianity's two main laws are Love God and neighbour. Let's be clear about that.
'I don't deny that Christians do positive things for other people. And so do non-Christians, so what's your point?' - that atheists shouldn't just focus on the negatives regarding Christians.
'Can you not think of anything in life that suggests that there could be a benevolent being at the source of it all? No, I can't'
- why is there beauty in the universe (obvious and cliched, I know, but: the moon, the stars, the sun, The Grand Canyon).
- why do people do benevolent acts for each other to the point that they will risk their lives for each other (for example soldiers who risj their lives in extraordinary ways to keep others alive).
- what is love?
'small speck is overly concerned with the mundane affairs of human beings' - but our lives are not mundane. And if we think that they are, then we must look for the extraordinary in the ordinary - just as the great painters do/did in the paintings, writers with their writing, composers with their music (remember the beginning of Figaro), poets with their poetry and so on. You don't have to be religious to see that ordinary lives to not have to be mundane.
'It does not seem very likely to me that our lives here on this Earth are just a testing ground so that some supreme being can decide whether or not we will spend an afterlife in either perpetual happiness or eternal suffering' - with respect, this sounds like a crude version of things - the god you portray is like some pagan, classical god playing tricks on us. With respect, I think we have to be more subtle in our thinking about who God is.
Joshua:
Stop by my blog for a different perspective on your saintly-saint Paul. I threw in a bonus reel too.
Paul was a "rich head of church" wanna-be. That he didn't make it was testimony to the fact that lots of other well-off Temple Franchisees didn't like him cutting in on their territory. The Emperor Constantine and his vapid wife had more to do with cranking up this steam caliope. Paul gave them the means with his writings, but the move was politically motivated. Bet the monks didn't tell you that.
Christianity's two main laws are Love God and neighbour. Let's be clear about that.
Can't love what doesn't exist. As for love your neighbor, the Chinese philospher Mo Tzi spoke about universal love centuries before Jesus.
that atheists shouldn't just focus on the negatives regarding Christians.
I don't.
but our lives are not mundane.
To us they are not, but to a being capable of creating the universe, we probably are rather mundane.
with respect, this sounds like a crude version of things - the god you portray is like some pagan, classical god playing tricks on us. With respect, I think we have to be more subtle in our thinking about who God is.
But when you boil Christianity down to its essence, that about sums it up. Regardless of whatever good works I may have done, a Christian thinks that not only will I suffer for an eternity in the after life for not believing the Jesus story, but that I also deserve it.
Joshua (and any others who are intereseted) . . . Those who would promote the benefits of Atheism or Christianity miss the point because they know what they are against and feel they need a "book" to justify what their stance . . . or their lack of a need for a "book". In my last 60 years I have had both sides wonder "how I could possibly fraternize with the other side". My answer is that in my life, I sort out and discard shitheads, the people without a "morality" crafted as a justification for their way of life. My religious experiences sermized that most of the piety existed on "this side of the altar" and that the so-called "religious leaders" were the "bad guys". I have had the opportunity of meeting with dozens of "ex-clergy" who couldn't stand that their concern for the "people" had to take a back seat to the agendas of the "powerful". Of course, these ex-clergy were not of the type that aspired to "promotions", and I believe that is why we "connected". Like I have said before, The Milesians have had more open acceptance by the "clerical world" than the "atheist world". Visit my site. I look forward to your comments.l
Breakersline
'Paul was a "rich head of church" wanna-be. That he didn't make it was testimony to the fact that lots of other well-off Temple Franchisees didn't like him cutting in on their territory' - we know that St Paul was a very unsaintly person before he was converted. We know that because it it says it in the Bible: he persecuted Christians!
But once he converted (famous road to Damascus) he, along with all the early Christians, lived in apostolic poverty. And took his faith so seriously that he died for it!
'The Emperor Constantine and his vapid wife had more to do with cranking up this steam caliope. Paul gave them the means with his writings, but the move was politically motivated. Bet the monks didn't tell you that' - I studied Constantine as part of my History degree at university (non religious university - non-religious course). So I know quite a lot about Constantine. As I have said / suggested before I never said Christians are perfect! One of the reasons they turn to God is because they are imperfect. Yes, Christianity was compromised during the reign of Constantine. I have no argument with that.
I mentioned Francis of Assisi before. Francis is one of the best-known Christians in the history of Christianity. He well-known precisely because of his uncompromising stance on worldly power and wealth. He rejected it all, and took to the road in aposotolic poverty. And there are ample historical sources to provide evidence of this and his massive influence on Christians at the time and on Christians since then. And there have been many more Francis-of-Assisi-like personalities: from the female point of view, for example: Teresa of Avila.
Tommy
'As for love your neighbor, the Chinese philospher Mo Tzi spoke about universal love centuries before Jesus' - hold on. The argument wasn't that Christianity is more about love than other religions or ways of thinking. The point of this quote was to provide you with evidence about what Christianity is all about. It is all about love because it says so in the Bible: 'love God and neighbour.' So when atheists say Christianity is wicked and so on, they are in effect saying that love is wicked - which is of course absurd and wrong. They fail to make the difference between what Christianity teaches (Love) and the way Christians fall short (just as atheists fall short) owing to human nature.
anton kozlik
All I can say is that there are lots of non-believers who I naturally prefer and enjoy being in the company with than with believers (and vice-versa!).
However, I don't think we should split people into groups: shitheads and non shitheads. People can be transformed from shit to gold! (I don't just believe this because Christianity teaches us to look for the good in people - I know this from my own human experiece!).
The Bible is very clearl about self-righteousness (my own self-righteousness is something that haunts me). Let's not forget the self-righteous religious people who persecuted Christ. And let's not forget the 'Christian' witch-burners, ghastly puritanism, The Spanish Inquisition, the corruption of the Church, and so on. But by the same token, we shouldn't forget the many decent, generous-spirited, humorous Christians too: Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila (who said that Christians without a sense of humour and who took themselves very seriously, terrified her). And let's not forget the millions of Christians over the centuries: peasants, ordinary people - ordinary Christians living ordinary lives. Let's not forget that Christians are not mean to flaunt their good works / love etc .. They are not meant to show off. Just think of all the millions of Christians who have led quiet lives, doing little acts of good here and there (through love / compassion - not through wanting to be saintly). Evil is often senstational in nature and, too much, it is the sensational, wicked historical acts of 'Christians' that get remembered, not the millions and millions of everyday little acts of love / compassion etc ..
I know lots of people who I think don't have any religion (I might be wrong ..) who have shown me love / compassion / humour. For that reason I refuse to put them into the same boat as atheistic, for example, dictators who have murdered lots of people (plus Christianity says I shouldn't put them in the same boat: Christianity seeming to back up what I experience in real life).
anton kozlik
The point I was leading up to ..
Christians MUST think about why they believe. It is not enough to believe because your Mum and Dad believe. Or because a preacher is charasmatic.
Christ said to be 'as wise as snakes.' We Christians must think about our religion so that we believe because we really believe. And that involves rational thinking. And it invovles prayer to God. Prayer to come to a pesonal, spiritual knowledge of God (which is what I have experienced, and where my real faith lies).
And as I said it involves rationalism too. But rationalism can only get us so far in life. Einstein was only able to come to his great theories through creative-thinking / imagination not just knowledge or maths. Einstein said very clearly 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. At a certain point in his work, Einstein had to make leaps of imagination / creative thinking to arrive at his conclusion. But it wasn't a blind leap into the unknown. The same as Christianity. Christianity isn't a blind leap into the unknown. We have to think about and rationalize our faith. But at a certain point reason will only get us so far. At a certain point we do have to make that leap of faith. The same can be said for inventors, business entrepreneurs and so on. No-one does thing blindly. They do their thinking first. But at some point, leap of faith is requied, yes.
Joshua - "But at some point, a leap of faith is required" The many "achievers" in our world history made that "leap", but the leap in faith was their "faith" in themselves, or their ideas. Edison, Gates, Einstein, Galileo, etc. were atheists who accomplished great things because they managed to rid themselves of the "belief" that everything comes from some "gods". It is unfortunate that the "religious" are attempting to rewrite the "history" of these great men and women, and countries as well. Christians would have us believe that the US was created as a Christian country. Sr. Bush would deny citizenship to Atheists . . . and he got away with saying it because the Christians failed to rebuke his careless statement. The religious right acted like an ugly old whore that was told "she is beautiful" so she was not about to "disagree". If both sides, Atheist and Christian could police their ranks, we wouldn't have some of these outrageous rantings . . . and we wouldn't have claims that "Darwin" and "Constantine" converted or confessed on their death beds. My Christian associates are always asking to "prove" these facts, yet provide no "Prove" themselves. They use the "bible" to prove the validity of the "bible". As Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof!"
Joshua and others - please forgive some of my "typos". I am a stroke survivor and partially blind. Most often I get my "comments" checked by someone less "afflicted". Unfortunately, I sometimes want to get my comment posted and can't wait.
anton kozlik
'Einstein, Galileo, etc. were atheists' - you are quite wrong about Galileo. Galileo was a Christian. A firm believer. Prominent atheists would have no argument with this. Galileo wrote: 'God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word.' Unless you can provide some firm evidence that he was a Christian then I assume you think he was an atheistic because he fell foul with the Church over science.
And it is not crystal clear that Einstien was an atheistic either. Although Einstein doesn't appear to have believed in a personal god (what went through his mind on his death bed, we don't know) there is evidence to suggest that he did believe in some form of intelligent design:
'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.'
And here are his views regarding himself and atheistm:
'In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.'
and
'I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
'It is unfortunate that the "religious" are attempting to rewrite the "history" of these great men and women, and countries as well' - with respect you are the one re-writing the history books. Just given you a very clear example regarding Einstein and Galileo (you don't even offer up any evidence - you just provide us with a statment / opinion).
Lastly, you miss the point about the analogy I was making with great thinkers. I don't deny they had belief in themselves. The point in the analogy I was making is that they use reason and judgement (not just a subjective belief in themselves as you talk) in arriving at their great discoveries - but at some point they have to make a leap of faith (just as Christians have to use reason, too, but that at some point they too have to make a leap of faith). That was the point I was making.
Anton
'Unless you can provide some firm evidence that he was a Christian then I assume you think he was an atheistic because he fell foul with the Church over science' - typo mistake on my part, I meant: unless you can provide some firm evidence that he WASN'T a Christian'
Joshua - point taken. Galileo may have been a devout Christian. I ask you to consider this, "What stand can Americans take in the face of what America is doing. Do they "reject" their citizenship? Do they proclaim to the world that they are American, even if that means "endorsing what America has done" or do they openly "renounce" their citizenship and incur the wrath of their "fellow citizens"? If you can't do this today, imagine what it was like in the time of Galileo, or Plato, or at "The Milesian School of Thought" in ancient Greece. To claim that Galileo's "inspiration" came from a God would bring into question which "god channels" were being listened to by the "church" and the "scientists". It would appear that they were on different "wave lengths". Lets agree then that I won't claim they were Atheists and ask that you don't claim they were Christians. Neither can be proven. But lets remember, the church maintained a form of control over what was done in the arts and sciences for several centuries by "threatening" dire consequences to "non-believers" whose work did not "glorify" god, directly, or by those others who "needed" the church's control over the masses. With regard to "you are rewriting the history books" - don't you think that they could use some "editing"? How many people know what was meant when it was said "We The People"? How many people care?
Anton
'I ask you to consider this, "What stand can Americans take in the face of what America is doing. Do they "reject" their citizenship? Do they proclaim to the world that they are American, even if that means "endorsing what America has done" or do they openly "renounce" their citizenship and incur the wrath of their "fellow citizens"?'
- with respect, I don't follow you. Are you making a point about religion or politics? Or both? If it is about religion-atheism, please clarify so I have something more specific to reply to.
'Lets agree then that I won't claim they were Atheists and ask that you don't claim they were Christians' - I am not sure how you arrived at this point. I think the important point about Galileo and Mendel and Plank (mentioned in earlier post) is that science and religion are certainly not opposed (even though some Christian fundamentalists and some atheistic fundamentalists kind of think that they are).
Rather science is part of Christianity. God is the master scientist. The master engineer. The universe is far more sophisticated than the Christian fundamentalists would have us believe. And it is far more beautiful in its make-up than the often very matter-of-fact way in which is is portrayed by some atheists.
Just as science is part of Christianity, so is everything that is good in life: the arts, humour, love, joy, peace, philosophy, and so on. They are part of religion (not opposed to religion). They only become bad when they are perverted in some way (arts that seeks to shock just for shock-sake and publicity to make money), humour (mocking humour as opposed to good-natured humour), love (love of self, instead of love of others), joy (self-indulgent pleasure instead of true joy), peace (hiding in comfort zone instead of true peace that often comes, for example, fighting the bad within ourselves), philosophy (spending all our times just thinking, instead of - when the opportunity arises - having to acutally do something) and so on.
'Neither can be proven. But lets remember, the church maintained a form of control over what was done in the arts and sciences' - as a Catholic, I quite agree with you. I have studied this. I know of the sins of the Church. But, Anton, you are very one-sided in your argument. What about the many Christians who have supported the arts? Don't forget, for example, the support that people such as Fra Angelico received (he was a devout friar who painted like a genius, of course), Bach and others. And don't forget how atheistic Soviet Russia clamped down heavily on the arts too. They only wanted arts that reflected what the Soviet Union was all about.
Joshua - I liked your interchange but it has drawn me off of my focus, which is to create an Atheist community based on some moral principles. Not every Atheist is a nice guy. Not every Christian is a nice guy. The fact that religious zealots "attack" the "non-religious" means their energies are not directed at their own "community". If Christians judged their own and came up with a "judgement" they could set an example for the other guys. For example, every Milesian is an Atheist but not every Atheist is a Milesian. Christians represent more than 30 "clans" or "tribes" who are too busy attacking us "Atheists" to deal with their "collective clans". Oh, yes, I forgot. "God can be the only judge". How about the "Christians" being more "godlike" then, and quit judging others until they learn to judge themselves. After all, they should start out with what they are familiar . . . other Christians. I am certain that should keep Christians busy for the next two or three centuries.
Joshua - "Soviet Russia clamped down heavily on the arts too. They only wanted arts that reflected what the Soviet Union was all about."
Could it be that Soviet Russia "learned" how to control the masses from the church? Remember the statement, "If they don't believe your lie, just tell a bigger lie!" which has been variously attributed to many people in history. Or could it be a formula for success practiced by various leaders?" Your interest in history is to be commended, but I would suggest that you take off your tinted glasses and revisit the history that most actually "existed" rather than the one "created" and "written" by men with similar tinted glasses. For example, some of the biggest attrocities in history, the largest "genocides" perpetrated on the human race, were done by a Christian nation. I guess they are just continuing in the tradition of the Old Testament . . .
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
[Thomas Jefferson]
Most atheists do not believe there is no god but lack belief in a god. If god cannot be proven or disproven then lack of belief is the only honest position.
There have been thousands of religions created by humanity,how do you know you have the right one? And have you studied the others?
I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case) by Edward Current
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P...G8&
feature=user
Anton
'How about the "Christians" being more "godlike" then, and quit judging others until they learn to judge themselves. After all, they should start out with what they are familiar . . . other Christians. I am certain that should keep Christians busy for the next two or three centuries'
- As I have said / suggested many times before Christians do / say bad things. Very bad things. And so do atheists. But why do you focus on Christians? When it comes to bad things you seem to focus on Christians. I think you should focus on human nature. It is human nature that makes things bad.
Otherwise you have to ask yourself: what, fundamentally, is Christianity. I have already answered that. Christianity is fundamentally about Loving God and neighbour - the two most important Christian laws - the fundamentals of Christianity. You cannot attack 'love' - the source of Christianity, what Christianity is all about. But still you focus on Christians being the bad people. Who, really, are the Christians? I ask you, what do you mean by Christianity? What do you understand by 'religion'. And what is the true source for religion in your view?
Anton
'Could it be that Soviet Russia "learned" how to control the masses from the church?'
- the Pagan Romans were, perhaps, the greatest rulers to rule over this planet. They didn't need anyone to learn how to rule. They ruled thanks to the personal ambition and ruthlessness of its leaders (consuls, generals and Emperors) - some more ambitious and ruthless than others.
What do you mean by Church? By Church do you mean abberation of nature (that religion is the result of some faulty gene?). If so it is a pretty clever, faulty gene.
And do you believe that there are more faulty genes (that have nothing to do with religion) than just the religious gene. If so what are they?
If you are going to blame the sins of atheistic Soviet Union on the Church and religion then you really need to offer - with respect - an argument of some sort (scientific, philisophical - something).
Joshua - Christianity is an "identifiable" tribe. In fact, it is many tribes, or clans. When "bad acts" by any group are condoned and endorsed by their "clan" then the "clan" has to take responsibility and not blame "human nature". For example, I can point to many "religious" clans who have honourable rules and their followers generally follow them. Our world's problem is that some of the "followers" don't follow the rules and other memebers of their "clan" do little, if anything about it. While I find the practice horrifying, I like the old world practice of cutting the finger off each time a thief was "found out". I think that a "fingerless" person created a message for all the kids that they better not do the same thing or they would lose a finger. From what I hear, the punishment for telling a "falsehood" was even worse.
Today, the ultimate perversity occurs when "clergy" of various "faiths" bless and pray for success by their clans "combatants". If the clan, in this case Christianity, were true to its beliefs, it would be Christianlike and "withhold" its blessings and endorsements for "unholy" activities. I realize that I use "Christianity" when I should say "faith based" or "god worshipping". Use any moniker you wish . . . it is still a belief in the supernatural, and as practiced today, condones and endorses ongoing attrocities. "Let's bless the troops!" "Let's sprinkle holy water on the bombs!"
How willing are members of "clans" to accept that some of their actions are not morally acceptable? They are just like the professions who "rally around" their "clan" when one of their "members" is accused of a bad act. Invariably it is no longer a question of the morality of the action, but rather "an attack on our clan". Yes, that may be "human nature" and it takes a strong clan morality to deal with "human nature".
Anton
'Christianity is an "identifiable" tribe. In fact, it is many tribes, or clans' - what do you mean by 'tribe' / 'clan'? I have never heard of Christians before being described as this. You are just asserting your own values on what Christianity should be .....
Christianity cannot be a clan in the traditional sense, because clans are associated with a place / race in some way. Christians believe that all human beings are connected to each other in that they are all children of God. It is the duty of Christians to treat all people, equally, whether they are believers or not. Just as Christians believe that they should bring the faits to others so that they realize that they, too, are children of God, and connected to everyone else in this sense.
So it is just completely wrong to describe Christians as a clan or tribe.
'Our world's problem is that some of the "followers" don't follow the rules and other memebers of their "clan" do little.' - the greastest sins are often committed in private. Do you suggest that we should go around like thought police finding out who is doing or thinking bad things. Come on Anton.
At the end of the day it is the duty of Christians to protect the innocent (as it is of all people). If someone does something bad to another person, breaking the law, then we go to the police and we say this person has done that (just as you would or anyone else).
If you mean a Christian does something wrong in the name of a Church (as opposed to Christianity) i.e a bishop says that it is alright for Catholics to break into people's home for money to buy heroin (or whatever) then that would be wrong (he shouldn't use his position as a bishop to teach Catholics to do that). But if the Bishop was a heroin addict, himself, and broke into someone elses house for money to buy heroin, that would be wroing too. But in a different way. Just as the Bishop might say something really nasty to someone else he didn't like that had nothing to do with religion (he might not be breaking the law, but it was terrible all the same).
Can't you see that your statement is very black and white. And if we were really to get under the skin of what people really did and what they really thought, then we would have to become like thought police. At the end of the day we can't be thought police. And we don't have the right to be either - because we are all sinners.
Just amazes me the way you focus your attention down onto Christians. That everyone else seems to be allowed to fall victim to human nature - but not Christians (in your view or so it appears).
, if anything about it. While I find the practice horrifying, I like the old world practice of cutting the finger off each time a thief was "found out". I think that a "fingerless" person created a message for all the kids that they better not do the same thing or they would lose a finger. From what I hear, the punishment for telling a "falsehood
Anton
'I like the old world practice of cutting the finger off each time a thief was "found out" - what, are you serious?
Joshua ". . . are you serious?"
Yes!
It is human nature that makes things bad.
I completely agree with you on this Joshua. We are all flawed human beings. Unfortunately, not all of us possess a sense of introspection about how we can improve ourselves and by extension the world in which we live in.
Maybe it makes me a moderate atheism, but I do not have a problem with Christians or religions per se. As I wrote above, if your belief in Christianity makes you a happier person, then far be it from me to try to change that. As for myself, I've been there and done that. You need to understand that many atheists were at one time very religious, so whatever you are experiencing now, we've been there already.
The problem from an atheist perspective is that Christians who take the Bible too literally act as if it contains truth claims about the Earth and the cosmos. It is one thing to believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he wants us to love one another. It is another thing to demand that science and history be taught from a biblical perspective. Or for prominent televangelists to tell millions of people on their television programs that 9/11, earthquakes or Hurricane Katrina were manifestations of god's wrath against atheists, gays and women who have had abortions.
I have to cut this short because my lunch break is coming to an end, but I wanted to get an idea where I am coming from.
Tommy
'You need to understand that many atheists were at one time very religious, so whatever you are experiencing now, we've been there already' - I don't want to question your past faith. But if you have had a personal experience of God (I don't mean seeing Him, visually, but spiritually), then your faith is more than just something intellectual. It is something very spiritual. I have been a Christian now for over 18 years. And my faith has been growing (with lots of huge dips). And my happiness growing (with lots of huge dips).
'The problem from an atheist perspective is that Christians who take the Bible too literally act as if it contains truth claims about the Earth and the cosmos. It is one thing to believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he wants us to love one another. It is another thing to demand that science and history be taught from a biblical perspective'
- I quite agree with this. History should be taught as history. Religion as religion (that is not to say that the believer cannot or shouldn't see religion in history, and history in religion, but, it is the overall approach I mean, at say, school or university).
'Or for prominent televangelists to tell millions of people on their television programs that 9/11, earthquakes or Hurricane Katrina were manifestations of god's wrath against atheists, gays and women who have had abortions' - We know that Job in the old testament suffered all sorts of physical ailments etc .. but we know quite cleary that God wasn't angry with him. I think fundamentalists are just too black and white (but we are all fundamenatlist in some shape or form, I guess, about something).
I am opposed to homosexuality but ranting and raving against gays isn't going to achieve anything. I agree. And fundamentalists need to be reminded that they must first love gays (not homosexuality). At the end of the day sex outside marriage is a sin for the Christian. Since I have had sex outside marriage (not proud of), I certainly can't judge gays. However, saying that, it doesn't mean I stop believing that sex outside marriage is a sin. It is. But I have been weak in the past (when my faith has been really low). And I regret that a lot, and ask for forgiveness (and, sex, like drugs and lots of other things, is really, really over-rated - the joy of God is a billion times greater). Remember, I am a Christian, not because I am perfect, but because I am (very) imperfect, and need God all the time.
I, also, think that abortion is wrong - but that we Christians need to do more to support those who need moral and finacial support to avoid going down the route of abortion - and not just give our moral opinions on the matter.
But that doesn't mean Christians shouldn't speak out against what they believe is wrong. But there is a way of doing it. And, always, remembering to love the sinner (not the sin). And remembering that we Christians are, also, sinful, and need God as much as an
Joshua - Just carrying forth ancient references like "the twelve tribes". Don't you think you are really splitting hairs when you won't condone use of "tribe" or "clan" yet endorse a doctrine that claims "we are all childen of god"!
"Tommykey" - I agree. Your statement that the change of a collection of myths, analogies and fairy tales into literal history has been a deterent for "free thinkers" for centuries. And, before "Christ", their were the Greek Gods. We don't take them as literal fact. Long after I am dead I trut that "Christ, Allah, et al" will be relegated to the same chapter in history that describes "Thor", "Mount Olyumpus", the "voodoo" beliefs in Haiti et al.
Anton
'Don't you think you are really splitting hairs when you won't condone use of "tribe" or "clan" yet endorse a doctrine that claims "we are all childen of god"!'
- No. Because the idea of tribe is that you are either inside or outside the tribe. Tribe suggests the idea of division. Christianity is the opposite of division. Christianity is all-inclusive (in the sense that everyone is invited to Christianity).
So not only is it not splitting hairs but 'everyone being children of God' ,as I said before, is the opposite to 'tribe'/'clan'.
Anton
'Just carrying forth ancient references like "the twelve tribes'
- but Christ transformed the nature of Judaism when He expanded fellowship with God to all human beings, Jew and gentile, alike. This isn't a matter of doubt or debate but, with respect, basic Christian theology.
Anton
But remember the difference between Christianity and the Haiti gods or the pagan gods.
- Christianity is a world religion that has grown and flourished to billions over the centuries.
- It is a religion in which God took the shape of man and lived amongst men on this earth. A personal God like no other.
- Christianity is fundamentally about one thing: Love. Jesus gave us the main commandments of loving God and neighbour. And He gave examples of what this love is.
- No other religion comes close to the humanity of Christianity. It is a religion that many ordinary people follow. That many great scientists, and writers, and philosophers, and so on follow. Different races. Different parts of the world.
Christianity has a univerasality of appeal that no other religion has. It is not suprising why it has grown and flourished. And why people take it so seriously.
And there you get to the evil and hatred of Christianity. You disapprove of gays and even get down on yourself for having sex out of marriage. And why? Because your religion has taken things that are good, or none of your business, and made them bad and hurt a lot of people in the process.
If you were gay you hate yourself even more than you do now.
And you billions times happier seems to be showing some flaws.
Joshua - "Christianity is the opposite of division" . . . a perverse delusion and there sure as heck are plenty of historical references to Christian division. I agree that "no other religion comes close" but it isn't a matter of which religion is best. You may have a supreme vintage of wine. I don't drink alcohol. Religions are like beverages. We all need liquid to stay alive. Christianity is not my "beverage of choice" and its claims of being the superior beverage, the only "real" beverage, the beverage of choice for "billions", etc. is nothing more than the same type of "hucksterism" that is used to sell snake oil, swamp land in Florida, mutual funds, "time shares", etc. I choose NO religions, NO gods. I resent those who believe in God