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....

[ST88]

ST88, Marxists even to this day consider dielectical materialism the core of their belief system. I've debated Marxists at length, and atheist-materialism is much more important than communism to them. Here's one such document which I think is pretty accurate.

It is accurate. It also has very little to do with the Soviet Union, which is what we were talking about. This might be a fundamental disagreement between us, but the USSR was not a Marxist state. It was barely a communist state (small "c"). After the Revolution, Lenin himself set up a capitalist marketplace for food producers in Russia.

If you want to argue that Marxism is an atheist political philosophy then be my guest. I'm all for it. But we're talking about what actually happened in Russia. And though the Marx-Engels paradigm was the initial spark for the Communist movement (1905?), the actual Red Bolsheviks mangled and twisted it ad hoc depending on what they thought was necessary or what they thought they could get away with. Gorky saw this and was Gorked. Trotsky started to see this, but too late to do anything about it, and he was Trotted.

But I doubt even your most ardent Marx-Engels supporter nowadays would sanction either Stalin's or Lenin's behavior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most current Marxists prefer socialized democracy -- purging the new Marxist nation of undesirable thinkers in such a Communist way probably wouldn't be necessary.

Here's an article by Lenin titled "MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM". These are not the words of a mere politician. They are words of a philosophically trained individual. I don't think you can ignore how philosophically aware these leaders were, and how much they valued their atheist ideals for the nation. Can you imagine what they must have thought of the naive thoughts of U.S. presidents who might have thought that Mach was a race car driver?

Not to be picky, but this was written in 1908, a full ten years before he could put his theories into action. It wasn't until he reached the actual seat of power that he could really see what was needed. I'm sure we all have our theories and our plans about what will happen in a given situation. But when that situation arises, idealism is often jettisoned for pragmatism. And the reality was, Lenin was facing a fractured nation with angry farmers and a weak economy.

I think their atheist ideals were very close to their heart in establishing a scientifically aware society. I used to debate a ex-Soviet Union physicist who talked a great deal of how our undergrad science education system is all taught in junior high and high school in the old Soviet republics. This was no joke. The Soviets believed that atheism-materialism would replace "superstitions" of the West, and that as a result, our society would eventually be found lacking compared to the progress of their philosophy in producing better minds.

I would disagree with that assessment from those facts. The Soviet Union operated largely as a paranoia-infused, reactionary image factory. If schoolchildren were taught more complex subjects early on, it was to prove to the West that their ideals were more successful, much like Hitler's Aryan team at the 1936 Olympics. The Soviet ideal of the atheist-materialist, if anything, was a propaganda tool for showing the Soviet people just how inferior the West was.

As an aside, I recall a story about how the Soviet botanist Lysenko who had some wacko theory about how traits in plants that were acquired from environmental conditions could be passed down to offspring. I found this passage in a search:

In the 1930s, Trofim Lysenko postulated that hereditary changes to plants could be triggered by environmental changes - for example, by exposing seed grain to extreme temperatures. He insisted that this theory, which rejected widely accepted chromosome theories of heredity, directly corresponded to Marxism. He was rapidly promoted within the Stalinist hierarchy and in short order effectively became the science czar of the Soviet Union. Under him, bona fide geneticists were denounced as advocates of a doctrine synonymous with fascism. Lysenko was personally responsible for the deportation to the gulag of many talented scientists who didn't agree with his theories.

Lysenko was, of course, just a symptom of a far larger disease, in which the reigning Soviet ideology, which insisted that its doctrines were firmly grounded in objectively verifiable scientific fact, warped the realities surrounding it to justify its own totalitarian rule and agenda.

Two decades after Lysenko was finally denounced by Nikita Khrushchev in the late 1970s, the Soviet media still featured a steady diet of contented workers and gleaming combines. The reality, as everyone knew, was different; decrepit, sluggish industries, an agricultural sector that had to import increasing amounts of wheat from the United States, widespread alcoholism and despair, a dead-end command economy.
-- Michael Benson Scientists and Bush: When science was thwarted before
Note: link leads to a Google cache of the article, which has been taken down from the parent site.

Empiricism, I believe, is an atheist notion.

As for the Magna Carta, you can read the MC at this link and see the number of references to Christianity...

It's not my intent to debate this at length. I did want to set the record straight, though.

I'll accede to that a bit, but I'll just echo your statement that causal links are hard to prove. And, of course, Christianity was the dominant framework of thought in that period, so naturally God would be invoked in such a document. In the cases you intend to show, however, it was largely Christians vs. Christians, so you can have it both ways. In addition, your "undercurrent of liberty" is my "predisposition towards the defense of regional Biblical interpretation".

[harvey1]

But we're talking about what actually happened in Russia. And though the Marx-Engels paradigm was the initial spark for the Communist movement (1905?), the actual Red Bolsheviks mangled and twisted it ad hoc depending on what they thought was necessary or what they thought they could get away with.

Understandable.

But I doubt even your most ardent Marx-Engels supporter nowadays would sanction either Stalin's or Lenin's behavior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most current Marxists prefer socialized democracy -- purging the new Marxist nation of undesirable thinkers in such a Communist way probably wouldn't be necessary.

I had the good fortune of debating one particular Marxist atheist for a little over a year (very smart guy), he wanted things the way they were before all this democracy stuff. It was then that I began to see the worldview of the old Soviet Union in a much more explicit way. (It was very enlightening debating someone on the KAL airliner that was shotdown during Reagan's first term, I believe.)

Not to be picky, but this was written in 1908, a full ten years before he could put his theories into action. It wasn't until he reached the actual seat of power that he could really see what was needed. I'm sure we all have our theories and our plans about what will happen in a given situation. But when that situation arises, idealism is often jettisoned for pragmatism. And the reality was, Lenin was facing a fractured nation with angry farmers and a weak economy.

Well, I would agree, however my underlying point is that atheism as a worldview hasn't been very successful. We could conceivably be reading how Marxist notions really took off and buried capitalism, but such is not the case. Now, what does this say about atheism as a philosophy? I think it says that they should lay low for a while on running a country. Let us liberal theists do it. We tend to do a better job.

[MagusYanam]

ST88, Marxists even to this day consider dielectical materialism the core of their belief system. I've debated Marxists at length, and atheist-materialism is much more important than communism to them.

Sorry, harvey1. This argument holds water like a sieve. Marx may have been an atheist himself, but his followers were far from being uniformly atheist. I suggest you look up the following towering figures in American Socialism: Walter Rauschenbusch, Norman Thomas and, of course, Eugene V. Debs. Rauschenbusch and Thomas were both ministers, Rauschenbusch a Baptist and Thomas a liberal Presbyterian, and Rauschenbusch taught at the prestigious Union Theological Seminary (now at Columbia University). Debs also spoke the social Gospel language of God's 'Kingdom on Earth', which he took to mean a just, classless society.

Causal relationships in history are very difficult to establish (of course!). I ask that you consider not just England, but rather consider what was happening all over Europe around the same time, which ultimately culminated into the Protestant Revolution as well as the establishment of later democracies. Here is, I think, a good description of what was happening around that time (this guy did a good job, so I'll use his website).

Perhaps before trying to establish your causal relationship, you ought to visit this website:

http://tuscaroras.com/graydeer/influenc/page1.htm[url]

It shows that the United States Constitution was influenced greatly by a Haudenosaunee (non-Christian) document, the Great Law of Peace, dating back definitely to 1450 CE, perhaps back even to 1000 CE. Some portions were even translated almost word-for-word.

One more thing. If you look at the actual politics of the Protestant Reformation, Luther and Calvin were both more dedicated to stamping out free speech and trampling on the rights of minorities (the Anabaptists) than they were to any democratic ideal - remember, they were dependent on the patronage of kings and dukes as much as the Catholic Church was. To tell the truth, I have very little respect for either Reformation theologian.[/url]

[JamesBrown]

Well, I would agree, however my underlying point is that atheism as a worldview hasn't been very successful. We could conceivably be reading how Marxist notions really took off and buried capitalism, but such is not the case. Now, what does this say about atheism as a philosophy? I think it says that they should lay low for a while on running a country. Let us liberal theists do it. We tend to do a better job.

If I may interject. I've seen now how you like to think of atheism as a 'worldview' and a 'philosophy', a system of doctrines that we all adhere to. Never mind that the atheists here have no doubt told you that atheism is simply a lack of belief--a reaction to a claim about a certain set of facts or truths. Never mind that atheists are as varied as any other large group of people. We do not all enjoy the same kinds of music; we do not employ the same principles; we do not all agree on every issue. We do not all vote for the same candidates, and were we each to be somehow placed in charge of a country, we would not all run things the same way. To homogenize atheists so that we all come out the strainer with identical thoughts, beliefs, and actions is fruitless and insulting.

But never mind all that. What I would like to comment on is the curious habit of atheist and theist debaters in trotting out the same set of arguments regarding the despotism of world leaders. The atheists remind everyone of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The theists harrumph with replies mentioning Stalin and Chairman Mao. Round and round we go, neither side budging an inch, and nothing gets resolved.

What gets ignored in this "Battle of the Body Counts" is the fundamental question, the question which this site is supposed to be about: Is Christianity True? It's a yes-or-no question, one which, I believe, holds a vital importance for the human species. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either Jesus is the son of God, or he isn't. Either Jesus was resurrected, or he wasn't. The issues about which countries employing which moral systems have encountered more success, whether in terms of human liberty or Gross National Product, is a secondary issue, one that will not be successfully resolved until we as a species can answer the simple question: Is Christianity True?

Yes, it's easy to point out the relative successes of one's position (all the while ignoring the failures.) It's easy to assert that, were one side allowed to run things, then everything would go along swimmingly. But this is skipping ahead a bit. Here's a quote from C. S. Lewis:

"...foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of factsto tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all." Man or Rabbit?

If belief in Christianity always leads to the violent suppression of heresy (a dubious assertion, in my view) and yet Christianity is true, then we must accept it, all the while guarding ourselves against the violent suppression of heresy. If atheism always leads to tyranny and injustice (another dubious assertion) and yet atheism is true, then we must accept it, all the while guarding ourselves against tyranny and injustice. To cling to that which comforts us, even if it is false, is to reject our position as humans and to allow base instincts to rule ourselves. Just as horses will bolt into a burning barn or dogs will shrink from the syringe bearing life-saving medicine, we may ultimately doom ourselves by embracing a falsehood.

[bernee51]

Webster Dictionary definition of atheisam: (a.) a disbelief in the existence of deity (b).the doctrine that there is no deity

Webster definition disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue

And I can quote the OED which states that atheism is "disbeleif in god Or gods"

Dictionaries reflect the meaning of the words often is a cultural context. The etymology is more indicative of the meaning.

there is no way around this, muddling the definition does not make claims that there is no God more true.

Nor that god exists

They remain as foolish as ever.

you have evidence that the claims are 'foolish' or is that just a throw away perjorative?

I advise you to keep searching for what is real.

That is what I am doing... have you given up?

There are many good reasons for believing Jesus, try searching there.

I believe much of what is attributed to Jesus is fine. The mythology is just that. He was no more divine than you or I.

Or else go the opposite direction and try to prove that your claims that there is no God are real.

Can you prove a negative? I think not. It is you who is making the positive claim i.e. god exists. The onus of proof rests with you not me.

Can you prove it?

"Do to others what you would have done to yourself".

Perhaps the xtian version does, the others are a little different. Did you read them?

The true christian is a follower and believer of Jesus Christ. He worships both in truth and in spirit.

yet another version of what it means to be a "True Christian" (TM). I must have collected nearly as many of those as there are versions of christianity.

Who to believe? Who to believe?

[gonkm]

And I can quote the OED which states that atheism is "disbeleif in god Or gods"

Dictionaries tend to give accurate usage. But if you just want to go with common sense, it makes sense that to not believe something is to believe something is not true. I use to call myself an agnostic not an atheist because I did not want to make a claim one way or another. My claim was that "I don't know if God exists". Now my claim is "I know that God exists because the evidence points in that direction, and because I have experienced him".

you have evidence that the claims are 'foolish' or is that just a throw away perjorative?

Psalm 14:1: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"

I advise you to keep searching for what is real.

That is what I am doing... have you given up?

absolutely not. But I've changed (although I have doubts now and then) from searching for "is there a God" to "what is his will". God says "seek me with all of your heart and you'll find me". I am confident that anyone who truly seeks him will find him.

I believe much of what is attributed to Jesus is fine. The mythology is just that. He was no more divine than you or I.

Notice that you said "I believe". So you are choosing to believe something.

Can you prove a negative? I think not. It is you who is making the positive claim i.e. god exists. The onus of proof rests with you not me.

Can you prove it?

Yes you can. Actually it is easier to prove a negative than a positive. For instance "I don't believe anyone has red hair" is easy to disprove by finding one person with red hair. But saying "I believe everyone has red hair" is more difficult because if there are a lot of red haired people you'd have to check every one of them.

yet another version of what it means to be a "True Christian" (TM). I must have collected nearly as many of those as there are versions of christianity.
Who to believe? Who to believe?

I've been amazed at how many christians believe the same thing. In fact, a girl I work with who is an Orthodox christian agreed with me that to be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus Christ. Now one could say "Well, isn't that different from what you said before about needing to worship in spirit and in truth?" I think believing in Jesus encompasses both because if you believe in him you both believe he is God and was risen from the dead (believing in truth) and you believe what he says (believing in spirit).

[harvey1]

If I may interject. I've seen now how you like to think of atheism as a 'worldview' and a 'philosophy', a system of doctrines that we all adhere to. Never mind that the atheists here have no doubt told you that atheism is simply a lack of belief--a reaction to a claim about a certain set of facts or truths.

Not all atheists. The most knowledgeable atheist here, Spetey, is aware that atheism is not to be confused with agnosticism. The whole issue of agnosticism dealing with professing an infallibility of knowledge is mistaken. Philosophy already has separate terms for such descriptions of the certainty of knowledge. Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley to distinguish his lack of a belief in God from the theists and atheists who had a definite belief concerning God. This is historical fact, I don't know what else to tell you.

Never mind that atheists are as varied as any other large group of people. We do not all enjoy the same kinds of music; we do not employ the same principles; we do not all agree on every issue. We do not all vote for the same candidates, and were we each to be somehow placed in charge of a country, we would not all run things the same way. To homogenize atheists so that we all come out the strainer with identical thoughts, beliefs, and actions is fruitless and insulting.

I'm not treating atheism as a homogeneous group. Rather, as I've said all along, atheism gravitates toward more radical views. Many of those radical policies just don't work, and the engine behind those radical policies is an atheist perspective.

What I would like to comment on is the curious habit of atheist and theist debaters in trotting out the same set of arguments regarding the despotism of world leaders. The atheists remind everyone of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The theists harrumph with replies mentioning Stalin and Chairman Mao. Round and round we go, neither side budging an inch, and nothing gets resolved.

I disagree. It does matter that Nazism was a tragic, tragic failure. If anyone expresses Nazism, no matter how unwilling they are to disassociate themselves from their past, I cannot accept it. Now, Nazism wasn't something that appears to be brought on by any particular religious or anti-religious view, but the Crusades were brought on by religious views and the Marxist philosophy has the dielectical materialism deeply engrained in their way of seeing the world.

What gets ignored in this "Battle of the Body Counts" is the fundamental question, the question which this site is supposed to be about: Is Christianity True? It's a yes-or-no question, one which, I believe, holds a vital importance for the human species. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either Jesus is the son of God, or he isn't. Either Jesus was resurrected, or he wasn't. The issues about which countries employing which moral systems have encountered more success, whether in terms of human liberty or Gross National Product, is a secondary issue, one that will not be successfully resolved until we as a species can answer the simple question: Is Christianity True?

Let's start a separate thread on this topic.

If belief in Christianity always leads to the violent suppression of heresy (a dubious assertion, in my view) and yet Christianity is true, then we must accept it, all the while guarding ourselves against the violent suppression of heresy. If atheism always leads to tyranny and injustice (another dubious assertion) and yet atheism is true, then we must accept it, all the while guarding ourselves against tyranny and injustice. To cling to that which comforts us, even if it is false, is to reject our position as humans and to allow base instincts to rule ourselves. Just as horses will bolt into a burning barn or dogs will shrink from the syringe bearing life-saving medicine, we may ultimately doom ourselves by embracing a falsehood.

This view is not exactly correct. Sure, something being false or something being true may have little to do with it being pragmatic, but I think there is a tendency that exists where pragmatic things are what we end up labelling as truth. In fact, it is our only real access to determine that something is true. Only later do we come along and stop seeing the pragmatic benefit and instead focus on the "logic" behind the pragmatic success. As it turns out, this is how we have come to know what logic is, and the reason why we pay little attention to deviant logics since they often do not conform to our pragmatic experiences.

However, I don't want that to take away from your point that there must be epistemic reasons for considering something as true. I agree. It's not good enough just to cite pragmatic benefit. Nonetheless, it is good enough to cite pragmatic benefit when all things being equal, we have no compelling epistemic reasons to change beliefs to less pragmatic beliefs. This is why realism is to be favored over antirealism. It's not that antirealism loses the battle against realism (actually, their arguments are slightly better), rather it is because realism is too attractive to not accept. Similarly, we have good reasons to accept Christianity, but the purpose it provides in life is much superior to the empty views of atheism. Hence, we should prefer Christianity over secular beliefs.

[ST88]

Well, I would agree, however my underlying point is that atheism as a worldview hasn't been very successful.

Which is an invalid point. Claiming it as "unsuccessful" requires more evidence than we have. The problem you run up against in making such a claim is that an atheist government will not care whether its citizens are believers or not. A democratic government with no religion backing its existence will be rooted in the rule of law. It will treat its citizens as if religion didn't matter and it will recognize the rights of all citizens to behave as irrationally as they choose as long as they do not harm each other or the state.

You are free argue that totalitarian "anti-theism" hasn't been very successful.

We could conceivably be reading how Marxist notions really took off and buried capitalism, but such is not the case. Now, what does this say about atheism as a philosophy?

Absolutely nothing.

I think it says that they should lay low for a while on running a country. Let us liberal theists do it. We tend to do a better job.

That, too, requires more evidence than we currently have.

[bernee51]

And I can quote the OED which states that atheism is "disbelief in god Or gods"

But if you just want to go with common sense, it makes sense that to not believe something is to believe something is not true.

Wrong.

A question for you...can you see the difference between the following statements?

I do not believe in god
I do not believe god exists.

They are not saying the same thing.

Now my claim is "I know that God exists because the evidence points in that direction, and because I have experienced him".

Can you prove god exists, rather than prove you believe god exists?

You have evidence that supports your belief...it does not prove the existence of your god.

If you have evidence of proof of existence I'm sure there are many who would love to know what it is.

Psalm 14:1: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"

It says many things in many books - why is an epithet from an agrarian society any more valid than Vonnegut?

absolutely not. But I've changed (although I have doubts now and then) from searching for "is there a God" to "what is his will".

Then your serach will be futile..not because your god doesn't exist but because his supposed words apparently say that he (and his will) are unknowable.


God says "seek me with all of your heart and you'll find me". I am confident that anyone who truly seeks him will find him.

Notice that you said "I believe". So you are choosing to believe something.

And this is significant? Why?

Actually it is easier to prove a negative than a positive.

Philosophic minds over the centuries would be surprised to hear this.

For instance "I don't believe anyone has red hair" is easy to disprove by finding one person with red hair.

You have not defined 'anyone'. I could bring in a red haired person and you could say "that is not an 'anyone'. Look again."

I have a fire eating dragon in my garage - prove I don't.

[ I think believing in Jesus encompasses both because if you believe in him you both believe he is God and was risen from the dead (believing in truth) and you believe what he says (believing in spirit).

Roman catholics profess to believe in this way. Are they "True Christians" (TM)

[trencacloscas]

A "tu quoque" (you too) argument fails heavily on the Christian side. Imagine you can establish that Stalin put up an atheist state in USSR (which is not the point, at all). On the other hand, it is perfectly arguable to establish that Hitler put up a Christian state in the Reich, since he was a declared Christian himself and got full support from Pious XII and the Vatican. Then the main question is... Doesn't Christianity claim to be different and better than all the other belief systems in the world? And the obvious answer: Well, at least it seems it's not better or different at all, then...