Wow! That’s impressive. Please relay to me how you got your hands on this knowledge. Even as an atheist, I wouldn’t dare to make the claim that I know that God does not exist. Maybe you just meant that you don’t believe God exist and I am just giving you a hard time for nothing.
Check out ‘Why I am not a Christian’ as it is a short and sweet analysis but I would suggest that Russell is not the greatest criticism of Christianity. Although I have not read much Nietzche directly, I know from my Survey of Philosophy class that he makes some pretty convincing and worthy arguments.
But I can’t prove evolution by myself either. But logic would dictate us towards evolution having happened and God non-existing. I am not trying to get into this arguement. But on the moralities of christianity.
— I would say that the concept of original sin is the worst thing that christianity has perpetrated. As Nietzsche said, “The christian resolve to find the World ugly and bad has made the World ugly and bad.” Bertrand Russell basically says the same thing in Why I Am Not A Christian.
— Christianity’s stand on sexuality is just as guilty as pornography in the respect that BOTH have taken the innocence out of sex and made of this wonderful celebration of life, something base and dirty.
Marshall, I’d agree with that and I have to mention that I am an atheist for pragmatic reasons and not just because this world does not imply the existence of an anthromorphic god. I would also mention David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
— Those are the main arguments. One might also point out what christians have made of death.
— Dialogues concerning natural religion was great, but i don’t remember much of it, i’ll have to reread it soon.
---- Also, by positing a world beyond this one (heaven), the christian has desanctified the only world we can be sure of. Every justice is relegated to the hereafter. I am speaking of christianity as it is currently practised.
Most christian moral laws coincide perfectly with natural (or rational) laws. I do believe I expounded on that previously…
Do you have any arguements to disprove natural (aka rational) law? I would love to hear them because in most cases by debunking one you debunk the other.
EDIT: Not to disprove natuaral law, but the validity of what it says.
Robert Anton Wilson wrote a book called The Myth of Natural Law against it and there’s a section of the Anarchist FAQ (which is definatly worth a read) that refutes natural law ( the sort that pro-capitalists use in their arguments) What is the myth of “Natural Law”?
One philosopher who wasn’t a Christian yet confessed that two arguments that showed that God existed were, “Starry studded sky above and the Moral law within.” Emmanuel Kant Evolution is amoral each person can set their own moral boundaries.
Kant was a Christian, not that his religious status changes in any way the fact that his argument does not support his belief. The burden of proof still lies in the hands of the believer, and until that proof is submitted, every believer must understand why it is that many of us do not believe. In fact, we are all still wondering why it is that anybody believes something for which there is no evidence. If I told you that there were an invisible elf on your shoulder, by what grounds would you have to believe me? By what grounds, could I prove such a claim? Is there any more evidence for God than my invisible elf? If you believe so, please make a list detailing them for me. I would be quite interested to read it.
Interesting that you say “most”. By your reasoning, shouldn’t it be all? Although, I would disagree even with the “most” sentiment, what if I were to begin a new religion based entirely on natural law (if there is such a thing as “natural law” ). Would that, therefore, make my religion more true than Christianity? No, right? We should all realize that Christianity is just an evolution and compilation of many different religious sentiments of early A.D and by chance, they just so happened to catch on with a little help from people in high places (i.e. - Constantine). When you really look at it’s doctrines, they don’t align into any sensible function. It’s just a big jumble of many different religious perspectives. Why do you think that there are 30,000 Christian denominations? Sounds like someone may be having a hard time aligning the non-sense that is Christianity into a single pure rational doctrine. I wonder why that is?
— Christianity fell on the fertile soil of Platonism. It was further nurtured by the early church fathers tertullian, etc, and it also claims ties to Judaism and Zoroastrianism before that. (Judaism had not even discovered the notion of HELL until it encountered Zoroastrianism.) If Mithraism (a religion based on the aforementioned Zoroastrianism) in ancient Rome had not been a secretive cult maybe very few of us would be Christians now. How many people are aware that St Augustine was a manichaeist (syncretism of Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity) before he was a Christian? All of these religions have influenced each other through the centuries by Constantine in the west as mentioned by Skeptic, by King Ashoka (Buddhist ~250BCE) in the east. I suggest that Joseph Cambell’s series the masks of God and any unbiased in depth early history would clear this issue up.
— Furthermore the bible constantly contradicts itself. (No wonder since it was comprised of spurious books written hundreds of years after the fact, included in the loose canon (sic!) as a result of very narrow votes.) Many books (perhaps as many as a hundred) were rejected at these voting places, evidently they were not divinely inspired. (witness the council of Carthage 397 AD) The bible also constantly repeats itself 4 Gospels, etc thus making it easy prey for the errors of copyists, and nobody can find the originals.
— Just one example of contradiction. In Matthew 5:22 Jesus condemns people for the epithet “fool”, but in Matthew 23:17 and Luke 11:40 he seems to recant his teaching and calls others fools, hardly the work of an omnibenevolent deity.
— I agree with Skeptic, Christianity is essentially polytheistic in a sense, still one God, but worshipped in all kinds of different religions, we are still basically “primitive” in this respect. still frantically groping for an answer in the midst of our nonsense.
— I still would like to see some evidence as opposed to assertions that Christianity is based on natural law, if someone can help me i would be much obliged, if not i’ll just start reading Thomas Aquinas, gotta have a balanced view, right?
Funny you should mention Zoroastrianism, as for the last couple of days I’ve been reading a book called “In Search of Zarathustra – The First Prophet and the Ideas that Changed the World.†– by Paul Kriwaczek. While not a definitive read, it covers a lot of the things you’re talking about, Zoroastrianism, Cathars / Albigensian, “Mani†of Manichaeism, Mithras (the Roman Cult, which has only been linked by name to Zoroastrianism, though little is known about the cult, it was a Male only and its doctrines where secret. And the fact that there are no written accounts of what it was about, must say something, as it was a secret and it’s stayed secret. It’s reckoned that it was more like freemasons then a religion). Then of course it goes all the way back to Zarathustra of Persia. A good library should have a copy of this book, as this is where I’ve picked up the copy I’m reading.
— I almost bought that book! I did leaf through it in any event; it seems very interesting although a lot of it is necessarily conjecture.
— I don’t know that Mithraism is connected in name only to Zoroastrianism, after all Mithra was a deity in Zoroastrianism, and we do know a little about mithraism with it’s seven hierarchial levels and the slaying of the bulls and all. For information on how Zoroastrianism and Mithraism influenced Christianity, go to: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/religion/zoro.html
— Your identification of Mithraism with freemasonry is right on target, they are both male and secretive.
— By the way, Mithra goes back to the Hindu Mitra-Varuna which predates zarathustra and Zoroastrianism.
). Would that, therefore, make my religion more true than Christianity? No, right? We should all realize that Christianity is just an evolution and compilation of many different religious sentiments of early A.D and by chance, they just so happened to catch on with a little help from people in high places (i.e. - Constantine). When you really look at it’s doctrines, they don’t align into any sensible function. It’s just a big jumble of many different religious perspectives. Why do you think that there are 30,000 Christian denominations? Sounds like someone may be having a hard time aligning the non-sense that is Christianity into a single pure rational doctrine. I wonder why that is?