Are you religous?, And Why? Options

[Spirited Away]

Indeed, Christianity today is different, but such recent events can hardly balance a two thousand year history of war, persecution and abasing concepts and/or other faiths. Today, people in the free world don't get ostracized (from all of society) for not believing or burned for heresy, that is the only major difference in Christianity of then and now that I see and take comfort in.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Furthermore, it's not as if we find out someone is a Christian and start hating them with a passion.

In whose defense are you stating this? In which cases? More and more often I see people that consider themselves 'atheist' simply so they can put down Christians as 'Bible-thumping, bigoted idiots'.

At least I've seen so in my experience.

[sadolakced acid]

so atheists can't have belief?

the events you metion are carried out by extremists.

the incidents i encounter may be by extremists; but then there are a hell of a lot of extremist christians in teh south then.

should i feel better that school children harras nonchristians if someone else in the world is being murdered for land under the pretext of religous war?

[*kryogenix*]

so atheists can't have belief?

the events you metion are carried out by extremists.

the incidents i encounter may be by extremists; but then there are a hell of a lot of extremist christians in teh south then.

should i feel better that school children harras nonchristians if someone else in the world is being murdered for land under the pretext of religous war?

It would be unfair to justify your distaste for the Christian religion by the actions of a few individuals.

[pshaa.shauna]

In whose defense are you stating this?  In which cases?  More and more often I see people that consider themselves 'atheist' simply so they can put down Christians as 'Bible-thumping, bigoted idiots'.

At least I've seen so in my experience.

And in our experience all we have experienced is the elitist Christian who harrass us. It's the same story.

It would be unfair to justify your distaste for the Christian religion by the actions of a few individuals.

But it wasn't a few individuals.

[*kryogenix*]

And in our experience all we have experienced is the elitist Christian who harrass us. It's the same story.
But it wasn't a few individuals.

The fact of the matter is that those people acted outside of Church doctrine.

[*CrackedRearView*]

And in our experience all we have experienced is the elitist Christian who harrass us. It's the same story.
But it wasn't a few individuals.

Then I guess I can take solace in the fact that it was you two who first initiated all the extremist stories and began generalizations.

Makes me feel good about myself.

[NoSex]

Personally, I don't dislike christianity because of its followers, I dislike christianity for its dogmatic nature, its rigid faith based mentality, its highly unsophisticated moral theories, its absurdist positions, and, as a whole, its religious ideas and theology.

I just think that Christianity is a very very ugly thing that offers mankind nothing but an addition of zero.

Not to mention, its an ugly thing that does nothing and, in the end, offers no reason for us to accept it.

[*kryogenix*]

Personally, I don't dislike christianity because of its followers, I dislike christianity for its dogmatic nature, its rigid faith based mentality, its highly unsophisticated moral theories, its absurdist positions, and, as a whole, its religious ideas and theology.

I just think that Christianity is a very very ugly thing that offers mankind nothing but an addition of zero.

Not to mention, its an ugly thing that does nothing and, in the end, offers no reason for us to accept it.

Ugly? Christianity provides guidelines on how to live morally and justly, as well as a means to get to heaven. I don't see any ugliness in that.

[NoSex]

Ugly? Christianity provides guidelines on how to live morally and justly, as well as a means to get to heaven. I don't see any ugliness in that.

Heaven: A sick fairytale that attempts to superimpose man's fears and insecurities of an indifferent world and justice under a shadow of death into reality. It's a lie that helps to devalue the time spent living beside our neighbors here on earth.

Moral Guidelines: Most moral guidelines are bullshit anyways. Christianity has never ever been about morality. It's more about control, social comfort, and the divorce from reason. A christian guideline isn't supposed to be examined ethicly, it is a commandment, not a moral premise.

Justice: If you honestly believe that Heaven and Hell, under Christian doctrine, are the most perfect and beautiful representations of justice, you truly need to revisit the entire notion of Justice.

I could go on forever. But, right now I really don't feel up to discussing what I believe is the true ugliness behind Christian dogma and doctrine. But, I will leave you with this for now:

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
-- Ayn Rand: John Galt's radio address in Atlas Shrugged

[*kryogenix*]

Heaven: A sick fairytale that attempts to superimpose man's fears and insecurities of an indifferent world and justice under a shadow of death into reality. It's a lie that helps to devalue the time spent living beside our neighbors here on earth.

If anything, the concept of Heaven and Hell makes me value my time here much more.

Moral Guidelines: Most moral guidelines are bullshit anyways. Christianity has never ever been about morality. It's more about control, social comfort, and the divorce from reason. A christian guideline isn't supposed to be examined ethicly, it is a commandment, not a moral premise.

I don't see your logic here.

Justice: If you honestly believe that Heaven and Hell, under Christian doctrine, are the most perfect and beautiful representations of justice, you truly need to revisit the entire notion of Justice.

Why not? Those who do not obey the rules are punished, while those who obey the rules or those who falter but are repentent are allowed into heaven.

I could go on forever. But, right now I really don't feel up to discussing what I believe is  the true ugliness behind Christian dogma and doctrine. But, I will leave you with this for now:

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
-- Ayn Rand: John Galt's radio address in Atlas Shrugged

In order to reason things out, you must accept truths. I see no reason why people can't accept Christian doctrine as truth.

This calls for a seperate topic.

[ikn0wurm0m]

OK..
my opionon here..

I think jesus's healing was just a conincedince of mircales and all the other stuff he did that we could commonly explain today.

[innovation]

As long as human freedom and passion exists, religion will, too. If people want to be religious, so be it. It's not a problem unless they radically try to disturb the world order on the basis of their religion.

And yes, Justin (senior), atheism is popular among teenagers as a pathetic attempt at pseudo-intellect. However, others do have well-thought-out reasons for their atheism. Ayn Rand seems to be incredibly popular for many high school students nowadays. I'm a Christian, but I have read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and The Virtue of Selfishness. At first, her ideas did appeal to me. They're logical, coherent, and make teens think, "Finally! An understandable explanation of morality and how the world works!" However, if you read her proof for objectivism in VOS, you'll see that she makes some excellent points, but her judgment of human nature is flawed in that she disregards emotion as a way of knowing.

I'll elaborate on this point using quotes and whatnot when I have more time... which will probably be during spring break. I'm off to BS an essay. Au revoir!

[NoSex]

If anything, the concept of Heaven and Hell makes me value my time here much more.

Explain.
If you believe that your entrance into heaven is already assured, why is your time here made more valuable?
Do you not have an eternity of happiness beyond the grave?

I don't see your logic here.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy which examines the nature of morality. If we are given a moral question, for example, "Is homosexuality wrong," we should give reasons as to why homosexuality is either wrong or right on ethical grounds. Christianity expects its adherents to follow its guidelines, not to question them. If the book says it is wrong, you must dogmaticly follow such. My Ayn Rand quote was to show the difference between following a commandment and making a moral choice.

Why not? Those who do not obey the rules are punished, while those who obey the rules or those who falter but are repentent are allowed into heaven.

That isn't justice. Rules can be unjust. Justice is the fair, moral, and impartial means of treating all persons. If someone does not obey a rule, that does not mean, inherently, that they should punished if justice is to be served. The rule may be unjust itself. The punishment must also fit the crime, so the punishment may not be just. The rewards might not even be just.

Given that a human being "falters" and breaks a rule, their punishment, if it is to be just, must fit the crime. If their crime is finite, they can not suffer an infinite punishment (i.e. Hell and eternal damnation), that is unjust.

Note also that heaven and hell are not reached by deeds, but by mercy. Mercy is the exact opposite of justice. While justice makes the punishment proportional to the crime, mercy makes the punishment, intentionally, disproportional to the crime.

Heaven and Hell isn't impartial, equal to all people, fit the crime, kind of incentive, it's God picking favorites. In no true justice system must you bow before a higher being in order to be respected for your deeds, nor would you be denied reward, if you did not bow, and given punishment instead.

In order to reason things out, you must accept truths. I see no reason why people can't accept Christian doctrine as truth.

You have to be joking? You see no reason why someone might have trouble accepting it as true that a human woman was spiritualy impregnated by a powerful God, then gave birth to a man-god named Jesus who went on to walk on water, heal the sick, die, and raise from the dead, all to save humanity from itself?

You don't find that hard to believe? You don't find that hard to reason out?

Let's start with the "truths" that help us "reason" these "things out."
What exactly are these "truths," and how do we know that they are true?

And yes, Justin (senior), atheism is popular among teenagers as a pathetic attempt at pseudo-intellect.

Although I would never go as far as to say that atheism is popular among teenagers, because it most certainly is not (At least not in the states), I would agree that there are a decent amount of irrational atheists. For me, and in my personal experience, it is just as hard to come about a rational christian as it is a rational atheist. What I have gathered from this is not that one side is more rational than the next, but that human beings seem to be, as a whole, rather irrational.

Unfortunately.

Ayn Rand seems to be incredibly popular for many high school students nowadays.

I wouldn't say so. I would imagine that a startling amount of high schoolers have never even heard her name before, let alone know and enjoy her. As a high school student myself, I don't even much care for her. Her militant objectivism is something I find rather disagreeable. However, she is still worth a look, and a powerful and important female voice in an otherwise male dominated philosophical circle.

[innovation]

I wouldn't say so. I would imagine that a startling amount of high schoolers have never even heard her name before, let alone know and enjoy her. As a high school student myself, I don't even much care for her. Her militant objectivism is something I find rather disagreeable. However, she is still worth a look, and a powerful and important female voice in an otherwise male dominated philosophical circle.

Perhaps it's just my environment then. I live in the DC area, and many students in my grade have read Ayn Rand. In fact, most read Anthem for ninth grade English (and entered the essay contest, sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute), and several did The Fountainhead for a book project in my Theory of Knowledge class.

And I never said that she wasn't worth a look. I investigated her works myself; obviously, I do feel that she is worth more than merely a look. Her novels are brilliantly written, and she makes her readers question the world around them, something that people don't do often enough.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; i see christianity among teens as a trend, a fashion.

but anyways, if you can tell me these three facts are false, then i have no problem with christianity.

1-- almost all branches of christianity agree that all other religons are false.

2-- almost all branches of christianity agree that nonchristians must be introduced to the word of christ in order for christ to come a second time (or something like that)

3-- most branches are uncompromising and unwilling to find rational explinations for things, instead relying solely upon faith.

[SideStraddleHop]

1 is true
2 is false
3 is mostly true

[SideStraddleHop]

When you argue against Christianity your vague referrences to "Christian Doctrine" become a straw-man. I understand that the constraints of time really limit the clarity in definition, but choosing not to for any reason amounts to a form of intellectual dishonesty. To wit, you are willing to expend the energy necessary to form rational arguments in your mind(commendable), but you are not willing to understand the premises you are arguing against. Thus, you give yourself and others a false sense of surety that your arguments are valid. Accuracy they have. Validity they lack.

Let's start with the "truths" that help us "reason" these "things out."
What exactly are these "truths," and how do we know that they are true?

That is the essential question. Do you accept the dogma of materialism(the epistomology)? When it comes down to it you are accepting one dogma or another. In order to really convince me(and pretty much every other Christian) that Christianity is a pack of lies(or however you deem to caricaturize it in order to justify rejecting it) you must explain why strict materialism is more rational than any mixture of materialism and idealism. If I am wrong in believing you are a strict materialist, please correct me thoroughly and clearly.

However, she is still worth a look, and a powerful and important female voice in an otherwise male dominated philosophical circle.

You disappoint me. Your arguments are so well constructed. But then you imply that gender is an important value in determining the quality of someone's thoughts. The fun thing about being hypocritical is that it doesn't make your argument wrong. I acknowlege the fact that you never claimed to not be sexist. It is an assumption on my part. However, the fact remains that your comment was sexist. On the other hand, I argue that due to differences in anatomy and more importantly in spirit women and men think differently. Hence, a woman's perspective is very valuable.

[*disco infiltrator*]

He wasn't being sexist at all, he was just making a point that for the majority, philosophical ideas come from males and that Ayn Rand is not a male. He was commending her for being strong enough to go write books in a field where it wasn't known whether she would be well-accepted or not because of her gender.

[NoSex]

When you argue against Christianity your vague referrences to "Christian Doctrine" become a straw-man. I understand that the constraints of time really limit the clarity in definition, but choosing not to for any reason amounts to a form of intellectual dishonesty. To wit, you are willing to expend the energy necessary to form rational arguments in your mind(commendable), but you are not willing to understand the premises you are arguing against. Thus, you give yourself and others a false sense of surety that your arguments are valid. Accuracy they have. Validity they lack.

1. You would have to demonstrate why they are not valid.
2. I'm not so sure that they are a straw-man, I understand, for the most part, Christian doctrine. You would have to demonstrate why I am misrepresenting said doctrine.
3. I'm not sure, but are you suggesting that, I can not argue against Christianity, because I do not understand those most basic doctrines of the Christian faith?

That is the essential question. Do you accept the dogma of materialism(the epistomology)?  When it comes down to it you are accepting one dogma or another.
In order to really convince me(and pretty much every other Christian) that Christianity is a pack of lies(or however you deem to caricaturize it in order to justify rejecting it) you must explain why strict materialism is more rational than any mixture of materialism and idealism
If I am wrong in believing you are a strict materialist, please correct me thoroughly and clearly.

I don't accept either materialism or idealism as truth. Both philosophies, under epistemological studies, have their short comings. However, epistemology is a very careful and close branch of philosophy in my life. My epistemological theories revolve around Rationalism and predominantly Analytic philosophy.

Also, as a rationalist, I do not believe anything dogmaticly. Anything I believe is subject to skeptical examination and oppposition.

To me, it seems arbitrary to take either a idealistic or a materialistic side. However, materialism has its purpose in scientific rigor, and subjective idealism has its purpose in certain branches philosophy. Noting also that to view either of these as axioms isn't exactly useful outside of natural science.

In all honesty, to me it comes off as a false dichotomy. I would assume it may come off to you the same way as you seem to have a distaste for strict materialism as opposed to a "mixture" of materialism and idealism.

To make this clear, I am not a strict materialist, nor am I a strict idealist. I am simply a rationalist. If you can demonstrate why a certain proposition is true, whether it be seated in materialistic or idealistic philosophies, I will accept it as true.

You disappoint me. Your arguments are so well constructed. But then you imply that gender is an important value in determining the quality of someone's thoughts. The fun thing about being hypocritical is that it doesn't make your argument wrong. I acknowlege the fact that you never claimed to not be sexist. It is an assumption on my part. However, the fact remains that your comment was sexist. On the other hand, I argue that due to differences in anatomy and more importantly in spirit women and men think differently. Hence, a woman's perspective is very valuable.

I was not implying in any way that a certain sex is more accurate in thought, or that a certain sex has a more impressive quality of philosophical perspective. I was just expressing my delight to hear a powerful female voice in an area of thought where female players are far and few between. As you said, a woman's perspective is very valuable, as is a man's. I would prefer seeing both genders as large players in the world of philosophy.

[Also, I hope you plan on sticking around.]

[*CrackedRearView*]

I love how Ayn Rand comes into the conversation. Even though she is a piss poor writer and I could barely stomach ten pages of Anthem.

[EddieV]

Yes and No, I have faith that there's something higher. I respect that higher being. Although I'm not too much into any specific religion.

[innovation]

I love how Ayn Rand comes into the conversation.  Even though she is a piss poor writer and I could barely stomach ten pages of Anthem.

People have different tastes. In my opinion, Ayn Rand is an amazing writer. Anthem is not her best; it's more of a fable than a novel. The Fountainhead was an excellent book.

[sadolakced acid]

anthem is a poor example of ayn rand's work.

[SideStraddleHop]

1. You would have to demonstrate why they are not valid.

Fair enough

2. I'm not so sure that they are a straw-man, I understand, for the most part, Christian doctrine. You would have to demonstrate why I am misrepresenting said doctrine.
3. I'm not sure, but are you suggesting that, I can not argue against Christianity, because I do not understand those most basic doctrines of the Christian faith?

I did not mean to imply that you can not or even should not argue against Christianity. In fact, your posts are a surprising and refreshing departure from the psuedo-intellectual and intellectually lazy fair that inundates these types of forums. I welcome any and all rational debunking of dogmatically held beliefs or absurdities. I also encourage any exposure of hypocrisy in anything said over a pulpit, on TV, or even coming from my mouth. I was merely stating:
1. Certain beliefs currently viewed as mainstream Christian doctrine stray very far from rational thought and even Christian scripture.
2. Apologetics and "religious thinkers" have constructed a straw-man that astute observers and rational thinkers so easily take apart.
I do not fault you in using the "mainstream" doctrines. I accept it as a necessity to do so, due to the fact that, last time I checked, there were more than 9000 Christian denominations worldwide each with their own set of doctrines.
I reread my post and it came off as, for lack of a better word, cranky. I'm sorry. I was suffering a bout of insomnia at the time, and I get worked up over religion and politics as any good bible-thumpin Christian would. (Note:Not really bible-thumpin)

• To tell you the truth I don't believe in the trinity doctrine. Incomprehensibility is not a virtue, especially when Jesus listed knowing God as a requirement for eternal life.
  
  
  
• I don't believe the bible to be absolutely infallible. Those monks were bound to screw up a few times over the long years transcribing, and medieval quality assurance is not something I would be willing to stake "eternal salvation" on. I believe it to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
  
  
  
• I don't believe confessing Christ or accepting him as your personal savior is enough for salvation.
  
  
  
• I believe the concept of heaven as simply worshiping God at his throne forever and hell as burning in a lake of fire and brimstone are strictly symbolic. I believe in life after death and eternal consequences, but those consequences must be commensurate with actions here on earth. I believe that mercy is available concurrently with absolute justice.
  
  
  
• I don't believe in ex nihilo creation. In fact it's not biblical. (As if that were the only reason not to believe it.)

I don't accept either materialism or idealism as truth. ...In all honesty, to me it comes off as a false dichotomy.

As you suspect, I agree. I wouldn't respect anyone as rational who was or claimed to be strictly materialist or idealist.

[Also, I hope you plan on sticking around.]

I take that as one of the highest compliments I have received in a while.

I will be back to address your post more specifically.

Edit: Corrected a run-on sentence, and added list tags for clarity.