Why Attack Christianity?

[RevJP]

I was just wondering about reasons for what people do. I understand why Christians evangelize. Our faith tells us that we have an eternal soul and that the eternal dispensation of that soul is determined by what happens here on earth. Eternal life, living with the almighty God is based on our faith and acceptance of Him and failure to accept Him as Lord results in our eternal seperation from Him. The choice is clear, eternal glory, or eternal suffering.

So we are commanded to spread the Good news, to allow everyone to accept Christ, and we do so for the sake of their eternal soul, altruistic? Perhaps, but we do it out of love, His love working through us.

So what I am really wondering about is why non-believers need to attack our faith, or feel the need? narrowing it down a bit, why would a non-believer come to a Christianity discussion forum to denounce that faith, or try to persuade those there that their faith is wrong?

I'm really wondering at motivation. We understand the motivation of the Christian for spreading the Word of his/her faith, but what is the motivation for the non-beleiver to attack it? What do they gain or lose? What reward hinges upon them being successful or not at convincing someone to abandon their faith, or to turn away from considering adopting that faith?

If my faith is wrong, and there is no God, no heaven, no hell, what do I lose? In this life nothing, in eternity nothing? As a Christian I lose nothing. For the rabid non-beleiver however, the answer is quite different is it not? If their view is wrong and there is a God in heaven and a devil in hell, what do they lose?

So I'm wondering at why....

[spetey]

If you seek someone's reason for a belief, you should have the common decency to consider it before dismissing it, unless of course the only reason you seek someone's reason for a belief is in fact only to dismiss and mock it. If that is then the case we have come back around to the original reason for this thread: WHY?

Right, it would be bad just to dismiss and mock the reasons of the other side. That would be dogmatism. So instead I consider them and either accept them, or else try to give reasons for why I think those reasons are not good. This is the reasoning process among people who disagree.

So if you are asking "WHY do you mock and dismiss dogmatically?", then my answer is, "I don't; I give reasons for my position." If on the other hand you ask "WHY do you try to give reasons for believing there is no God?", I have already answered that question many times, as have others. We have good reasons to think there is no God, and we think believing in God has many bad consequences, and so we give reasons for these views to others, hoping that others will come to believe as we do.

So far it seems you have mostly accused atheists on this thread of being mocking and dismissive. I'm sure some of us are. (So are some of the believers.) But there are many more on both sides who give reasons for our views, and ask you for reasons in return. You say you have good reasons to believe in God. Please give them on some of the other threads. Meanwhile here I think your question has been answered, no?


spetey

[RevJP]

I have already answered that question many times, as have others. We have good reasons to think there is no God, and we think believing in God has many bad consequences, and so we give reasons for these views to others, hoping that others will come to believe as we do.

Here is the point isn't it?

Do not beleivers feel the same way? Do you not believe that I have good reasons to beleive there is a God, and that I think believing in God has many good consequences? What you are in essence telling me is that your reasons are good, but mine are not. What's the real truth? That your reasons are good to you, mine are good to me, but neither may be good to the other - that is subjectivism.

So far it seems you have mostly accused atheists on this thread of being mocking and dismissive. I'm sure some of us are.

I'm sorry if it seems that way, perhaps I am trying to make a point that by far, the non-beleivers mock and dismiss the reasons of the believers, seemingly with no thought to the fact that reasons are subjective. We are not speaking of evidence, empiracle, demonstrable evidence (of which there is nothing on either side of this issue that qualify - unless one takes the tack that lack of proof equals disproof, with is untrue). We are speaking of reasons.

[spetey]

Do not beleivers feel the same way? Do you not believe that I have good reasons to beleive there is a God, and that I think believing in God has many good consequences? What you are in essence telling me is that your reasons are good, but mine are not. What's the real truth? That your reasons are good to you, mine are good to me, but neither may be good to the other - that is subjectivism.

Ugh, the ever-rampant subjectivism / relativism to which people retreat when they feel their opinions are being threatened. "No opinions are good, no opinions are bad, it's all subjective, man (but I'll mysteriously keep holding vigorously to my opinions, even though all opinions are the same)."

Look, you think God exists, I think God doesn't. These positions contradict, so one of us must be wrong. We should try to figure out which. I think I have good reasons for my position, and you think you have good reasons for yours. So we should try to work it out and see by comparing reasons and assessing them. In this way we can try to figure out the truth. That's what this forum is about.

On the other hand, if you're really a subjectivist, and you really think no reasons are better than other reasons, then you think all beliefs are equally good, and so you're just as happy with atheism as you are with theism. In that case, since by your own count atheism is just as good a belief as theism, you should not try to find fault with atheism. (And you should stop coming to forums where people try to figure out which beliefs are better. In fact, you should never try to correct anyone's beliefs about anything. The infant's belief that fire is fun is, according to you, just as good as the belief that it's dangerous.)

I'm sorry if it seems that way, perhaps I am trying to make a point that by far, the non-beleivers mock and dismiss the reasons of the believers, seemingly with no thought to the fact that reasons are subjective.

Oh boy. You've obviously not spent much time as an atheist, if you think it's only atheists who mock or dismiss. The US is full of those who mock and deride atheists. In some states you can't even hold a public office if you're an atheist. This is active and dangerous discrimination of the type that--believe me--Christians do not face in the US.


spetey

[QED]

So what I am really wondering about is why non-believers need to attack our faith, or feel the need?

Short answer:

Because of the great harm that religions do to the individual, to society, and to the world in general.

Yes, religion does some good to some people at some times, but nowadays the good of religion is massively ourweighted by the harm. To me, religon is synonymous with hatred, bigotry, violence, racism, sexism, xenophobia, oppression, sexual perversion, and the root cause of an untold universe of human suffering.

DanZ

Additionally, not wanting to derail the topic at hand, your feelings regarding 'religion' are incorrectly placed. You place the blame for the foibles of man on religion when you should, and probably already do, realize that mankind will do what they do, religion is often times just an easy 'excuse' for them being what they are. Nor do you take into account all the non-religious harms done by man, to man, or at least you fail to acknowledge it.

Was this early reply really going off-topic? Juliod can see nastiness directly associated with religion, but this is quite possibly an alien concept to you. So what if we look at the possible mechanisms: Religion could be inciting negative primitive instincts by dividing people into different, arbitrary tribes. This resurrects an element of tribal warfare that wouldn't otherwise exist. All arbitrary faiths are inevitably divisive.

This is why people like me look to science for the answers I seek - it is not another arbitrary system of faith, but it has the power of unity. If I pick at random 10 scientists from different faiths and ask a particular question of their religious belief I am likely to get 10 different answers. If I ask the same 10 people what relates matter to energy I can expect to be told E=Mc2. I deliberately mention Einstein's equation because it represents a feature of the world which can be verified independently. It could equally well have been Amdip's, Hussein's or Zhou's equation. A quick look in students textbooks will confirm this - math and science will agree no matter from what part of the world they come. The Religious Education material on the other hand will be all over the place.

Now I've talked about religion inciting our primitive instincts. There is yet another complex entanglement here, for the animal called man has been around for a very, very, long time. Setting aside protestations from YEC's we know that we are the product of an evolutionary process spanning millions of years. Our instinctive behaviors have evolved very steadily over the same timescales and because much of the operation of the limbic system is coded into our genes our nature is not so easily overcome by nurture. This is what is at the root of the obesity problem in the industrialized nations, and similar anachronistic instincts underpin every sin in the "good book" in the same way. Genetic influence on aggression and anxiety has been established in mice and the same gene is present in us (we share 98% of mice genes)

It's easy to see how all the major religions might have been developed throughout history as an attempt to deal with this problem (while all the time our developing cerebral system struggles to get on top of the limbic), but it has always done so without knowing the true nature of the problem it was tackling. To you and many others it might just be seen as human 'sin' that should be resisted and preached against. This is effective in some measure, as our cerebral cortex is becoming more and more executive, but the timescales are stacked heavily against us. In the meantime the blunt religious method of preaching abstinence etc. is aggravating many individuals problems by introducing confusing emotions such as guilt. Again, there is plenty enough here for its own topic.

While not for one moment excusing it, I'm drawing attention here to the fact that 'sin' as it is seen, is something that will probably take hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions) to evolve out of our systems - indeed we find ourselves in more deep water when considering how natural selection operates: if the 'required' behavior does not confer an advantage to the propagation of the appropriate genes, there will be no change at all. Deep water indeed.

This is why I would prefer to see us all forego our arbitrary beliefs and unite behind the one thing that is not arbitrary (for it is a reflection of the actual world we live in) and is capable of giving us exacting knowledge about the way we are assembled - knowledge that can be put to use in dealing with the undoubted bouts of nastiness that has gotten us to where we are thus far.

[RevJP]

You assume too much.

Ugh, the ever-rampant subjectivism / relativism to which people retreat when they feel their opinions are being threatened.

You began your post with a fiat dismissal of anything other than your opinion. Resonable discussion does not and cannot ensue in light of that.

"No opinions are good, no opinions are bad, it's all subjective, man

I did not say this nor advocate this. I simply offered the truth that subjectivism exists and we cannot deny that.

Look, you think God exists, I think God doesn't. These positions contradict, so one of us must be wrong. We should try to figure out which. I think I have good reasons for my position, and you think you have good reasons for yours. So we should try to work it out and see by comparing reasons and assessing them. In this way we can try to figure out the truth. That's what this forum is about.

I absolutely agree.

On the other hand, if you're really a subjectivist, and you really think no reasons are better than other reasons, then you think all beliefs are equally good, and so you're just as happy with atheism as you are with theism.

A straw man, and a major assumption on your part which effectively ends meaningful discussion. I suppose it is easier to dispute claims or beliefs if one compartmentalizes the person one is debating, easier to ignore reason that way.

Do you not agree that one can acknowledge the existence of subjectivism without embracing the subjectivist philosophy?

One reason I believe God exists is because I view the glory of His creation and understand that something so complex and beautifully interconnected had to be designed by an intelligence and not a random occurence. That is a good reason to me. You however will most likely dismiss that as an inadequate reason, and you are welcome to do so, that by no means indicates my reason is faulty. Now if you could empiracly prove that random occurrence did in fact cause what I see and appreciate to exist, then of course my reason would be proven to be poor.

Oh boy. You've obviously not spent much time as an atheist, if you think it's only atheists who mock or dismiss. The US is full of those who mock and deride atheists. In some states you can't even hold a public office if you're an atheist. This is active and dangerous discrimination of the type that--believe me--Christians do not face in the US

I'm sorry for your victimization by society, however, it is irrelevant to this discussion. We are speaking about forums such as these and other Christian forums where athiest flock, and by far, the evidence on this board and others supports my assertion.

[spetey]

Hey folks, hi RevJP.

Subjectivism "exists", but it's not true? I don't know what that means. I did not assume you were subjectivist--you were defending subjectivism and I gave reasons not to hold it. I'm glad to hear you're not really a subjectivist after all.

Look, you think God exists, I think God doesn't. These positions contradict, so one of us must be wrong. We should try to figure out which. I think I have good reasons for my position, and you think you have good reasons for yours. So we should try to work it out and see by comparing reasons and assessing them. In this way we can try to figure out the truth. That's what this forum is about.

I absolutely agree.

Great! This is the key premise of this forum. We atheists are not attacking Christianity. We are giving reasons why we don't believe it. You are giving reasons why people should believe in God. There need be no attacks here, just reasonable discussion.

I'm sorry we got off on a bad foot, RevJP. (Subjectivism in particular riles me.)

One reason I believe God exists is because I view the glory of His creation and understand that something so complex and beautifully interconnected had to be designed by an intelligence and not a random occurence. That is a good reason to me. You however will most likely dismiss that as an inadequate reason, and you are welcome to do so, that by no means indicates my reason is faulty.

Good! That is a reason to believe--the classic Argument from Design. You're right that I don't agree with this reason--because I can give reasons against it, not because I simply dismiss it dogmatically. I'm sure there are several threads that discuss variations on this classic argument, and give reasons why it is good or no good. You should join one! (Myself I might have it was a great argument, pre-Darwin--though Hume was clever enough to have serious doubts about it well before that!)


spetey

[bernee51]

Am I understanding that you feel belief in myth is a step in the evolutionary process and those who have 'divorced' themselves from myth have become further evolved, or enlightened?

In broad terms yes...perhaps it would be off topic to go into great detail as to why but it is not the perjorative you reply indicates you assume it to be.

Briefly: there is the archaic, which includes the physical body, biological drives etc and corresponds with Maslows physiological needs.

This is followed by the magic subject and object are poorly differeintiated. Features are egocentrism, animism, word magic et al. The narcissistic ego believes it can directly and magically alter or altered by the world. cf Maslows safety needs.

The mythic corresponds to Maslow's belongingness needs. magical powe is swirtched from the ego to a host of mythical gods or goddesses. Where the magic uses rituals to display magical power, the mythic ego uses prayer to petition the gods to do the miracle for it.

The rational is that aspect of the mind which dispenses wth the concrete-literql myths and attempts to use evidence and understanding to secure its needs. It is a ralization that neither egocentric magic not mythic god figures are going to miraculously intervene just to satisfy egoic desires. It is formal-operational thinking and corresposnds with Maslow's self-esteem needs.

I do not see evolution as one 'level' replacing another. It is more of a case of 'include and transcend'. If I look at myself I see aspects of all of these four as very much part of my existence. We never lose them - they are always part of our being. If I read a horoscope I am engaging in the magical, if I pray to a god I am engaging in the mythical. if I can think through a days activities to get the best outcome I am engaging in the rational.

Then there are the later levels

Let's see, child labor laws came about because people holding a view that children should be protected from oppressive and unsafe labor conditions, those views were imposed on society as a whole - was that wrong? Women now can vote, disabled people have equal opportunity, slavery is abolished, discrimination is illegal...

Straw man argument - I am talking only about issues which affect an individual and in all respects and purposes has no effect whatsoever on society as a whole. The issues you raise affect all of society.

Anyway, I digress....

we all tend to do that

[ST88]

I'd also just like to mention, ST88, that yes talking to you into a conversation about Hell or anything Chritian in nature could be seen as pestering to you. Personally, and according to scripture, we aren't supposed to go around bugging people about it, and selling it to them, only to be prepared to talk about it, and wear it on our shoulder, so that people know they may come to us for questions they may have, and if not, may we find the answer together.

That's exactly how I feel. Like you, I see many people around me who appear to be drowning and not know it. I know many religious folks who have a hard time reconciling their faith with everyday life -- each of us has answers to their questions.

And also, as far as all the bad things of the world, if we do not turn to God and ask Him to help us during times of need, and try to take action against them for God, we are only bystanders to sin and Satan's acts.

Again, we may be wanting to do the same things for different reasons. I imagine we both detest the Holocaust and are generally against Nazism. However, when Hitler came to power, he used the language of Christianity and Christian tradition (up to that point) to justify his policies. Many otherwise intelligent people were willing to follow him at the beginning.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the term agnostic as well, I merely looked it up in a dictionary, as I'm not too fmailiar with that as a spiritual/religious belief. But what it sounds to me like, is that you figure there may or may not be a God, but either way, you don't concern yourself with it?

You did not necessarily misunderstand the term. Just as you may get a particular reaction if you say you're a Catholic even though you disagree with the Pope on a number of topics. My own personal stance is that I choose not to make a choice because there is essentially no choice to make. It's not that I don't concern myself with it. My participation on this board is proof of my concern. It's that, in the end, making such a choice as Yes or No doesn't make any sense. My argument with Christianity is that it claims knowledge and feeling that demands a Yes answer -- and this has led to all sorts of trouble. I have similar arguments with other religious and belief systems that demand supernatural acts. But Christianity happens to be the culture in which I was raised, and is therefore a target with which I am most familiar.

Overall, I just don't understand what in the Bible (the document to which Christians should aspire) is so bad. It really doesn't tell anyone to do anything wrong by our standards, and that is still upheld all this time after it was even written.

The Bible has a lot to say about what kind of a society we should live in. In Romans 13, Paul says that Christians should suffer whatever ruler their nation happens to have because God put him there. Romans 1 says that there are certain things people do which are deserving of death. Among these: disobedience to parents, greed, spreading gossip, arrogance, and enviousness. I don't agree that these are good policies to have. But for many who believe in the Bible, to accept its teachings you must accept all of it.

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of Christians believe that a Christian God directs the arrow of history and that everything happens for a divine reason. For me this is a hard pill to swallow. And not just because bad things happen to good people. Good people allow bad things to happen because it's God's Will or some such. But I am comfortable with the idea of "randomness" as it applies to unpredictable natural events -- that there is a structure and that there are physical laws that dictate such things without the necessity for a divine hand.

But beyond this, as has been pointed out by many people on this board, modern Christians do not seem to follow every one of the teachings that I find in the Bible, which can be a real head scratcher. Is this why Catholics restricted interpretation to the clergy? I look around and I have to wonder what it actually means to "act" Christian.

I don't know, I guess it's just hard for me to believe that someone could not know God is there when to me it seems so obvious.

Likewise for me. I have no idea how you could claim the existence of God. We are not so different, just on opposite sides of the fence.

[Ami]

Sorry, I don't want to offend anyone really, but I really feel the need to voice how it seems that those who attack Christianity and view it as full of negativity or intolerance. That they seem to think giving up or opposing it will give them some special immunity from it.

You can argue all you want that your side is the 'right side', and the others are the 'wrong side', but heck, this is planet Earth, we are all humans, and thus there will never be any right or wrong side, just 'us' and 'them'. But so long as you are human you will always have some part of you that is exactly as bad as how you view your opponent. It is wrong to blame the other side, in fact blaming is wrong altogether, yet that is what it seems some do nonetheless.

From where I see it, both sides are intolerant. You cannot claim one side is bad and attack it or whatever sugar-coated substitute word for attack you want to use, when you yourself have your own faults including what you follow. Not to mention if an attack goes too far you end up being intolerant yourself.

That is why although I may read some debates here, I no longer want to debate. I prefer to learn more about my religion and study and practice it properly before I preach it, or debate it. I feel debating has ended up in nothing more than pointing fingers at someone's belief or unbelief while ignoring faults of my own. And if I want to become a more tolerant person, then I should stop debating and making myself self-justified by unjustifying others. Doing so would probably put me in the same place as those teachers of law who organized Jesus' death.

Mind you though there are some debaters here who do give a good calm discussion and do so through logic and intelligent thinking, and kudos to them.

Then again this rant may be a bit hypocritical here, though I don't care that all much just at this point. Yeah, I may be a bit of a jerk ranting like this myself, but that's how I feel. Sorry, I've gone all emotional now. and I wanted to get that out of me.

[concerro]

Sorry, I don't want to offend anyone really, but I really feel the need to voice how it seems that those who attack Christianity and view it as full of negativity or intolerance. That they seem to think giving up or opposing it will give them some special immunity from it.

You can argue all you want that your side is the 'right side', and the others are the 'wrong side', but heck, this is planet Earth, we are all humans, and thus there will never be any right or wrong side, just 'us' and 'them'. But so long as you are human you will always have some part of you that is exactly as bad as how you view your opponent. It is wrong to blame the other side, in fact blaming is wrong altogether, yet that is what it seems some do nonetheless.

From where I see it, both sides are intolerant. You cannot claim one side is bad and attack it or whatever sugar-coated substitute word for attack you want to use, when you yourself have your own faults including what you follow. Not to mention if an attack goes too far you end up being intolerant yourself.

That is why although I may read some debates here, I no longer want to debate. I prefer to learn more about my religion and study and practice it properly before I preach it, or debate it. I feel debating has ended up in nothing more than pointing fingers at someone's belief or unbelief while ignoring faults of my own. And if I want to become a more tolerant person, then I should stop debating and making myself self-justified by unjustifying others. Doing so would probably put me in the same place as those teachers of law who organized Jesus' death.

Mind you though there are some debaters here who do give a good calm discussion and do so through logic and intelligent thinking, and kudos to them.

Then again this rant may be a bit hypocritical here, though I don't care that all much just at this point. Yeah, I may be a bit of a jerk ranting like this myself, but that's how I feel. Sorry, I've gone all emotional now. and I wanted to get that out of me.

Disagreeing with someone's beleif's whether it is religious or politcial or something else does not make it an attack. I simply state why my belief is more logical and they counter my reason with their own. I doubt that if someone is really convinced, no matter how good my argument is, that it will make them change their mind but I get a chance to learn why people do the things they do and why they beleive it is ok to do those things. I am an atheist and I dont really care what your beleifs are as long as you, you being any other person, dont try to impose them on me, but I am curious as to why some things that seem so obvious to me are not obvious to someone else. I dont know what you consider an attack. If opposing your view is an attack or a personal insult that has nothing to do
with the debate.
No one here is claiming to be perfect, and the point of a debate is to point out the faults in an opponent not to tell them what is wrong with yourself. The point of the debate for some people is learning, others just want to win even if they have to use straw men and other illogicalcies(i dont think that is a real word).

There are some instances where someone will say religions caused this war or that war but that is not normally the case. Most debates are civil and dont go to pointing fingers. I would like to know specific examples of what you are talking about. If you dont want to post here you can send a message to my inbox.