Why Attack Christianity?

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:24 am

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....

gonkm · Post by **gonkm** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:26 pm

LillSnopp wrote: I am simply a far better "person" then any Christian you could find (in this world that is), Trust me, but, as i am an evil atheist, i guess im bad..... or? (trying to get some answers from Religious foolks).

I really have trouble believing that you actually believe this. I certainly don't believe this about myself. For instance, Mother Theresa seems to me to have done a lot more "good" than I. There are plenty of Christians I've met who seem to me to be at least as Godly or more than I.

But I do believe that "all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God". I guess if you feel your some sort of exception, I can't expect you to change your mind about it. But repentance is just that "a change of mind" is the meaning in Greek. And if you wont repent, then nobody can do it for you. I can hardly believe it though that you really feel this way.

As for you being an "evil atheist", we are all evil in the absense of God. Being an atheist doesn't make you more so than anyone else. But if you were to become a christian you could have the righteousness of Christ in you and rely on his goodness. Doesn't it strike you as truth that relying on the goodness of someone else (someone perfectly good) is the only way you can ever be trully good?

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:29 am

gonkm wrote:Doesn't it strike you as truth that relying on the goodness of someone else (someone perfectly good) is the only way you can ever be trully good?

That's completely false. That is a weak way of thinking. The only way you could ever be "truly good" is by being strong and confident yourself. The only way you can be "truly good" is by being good for the sake of being good and not for any other reason. Being truly good is being good because you enjoy it and it feels right.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:11 am

Doesn't it strike you as truth that relying on the goodness of someone else (someone perfectly good) is the only way you can ever be trully good?

In fact, it sounds to me morally repulsive...

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:22 am

I really have trouble believing that you actually believe this. I certainly don't believe this about myself. For instance, Mother Theresa seems to me to have done a lot more "good" than I. There are plenty of Christians I've met who seem to me to be at least as Godly or more than I.

What you believe is not of importance or relevance here, only that this is what i am. Your opinion of it is not important. So if your "jealous" (one option to why you would give me this kind of answer) because you arent a "good" person, well, life´s hard i guess.

But I do believe that "all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God". I guess if you feel your some sort of exception, I can't expect you to change your mind about it.

No, as i am not religious, i can not have sinned. So i am without sin, sorry.

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:37 pm

LillSnopp wrote:
trencacloscas wrote: Did I mention China? What's the point?
You mentioned the most powerful nation in the world,. and i simply pointed out that China is officially atheistic... Thats all.

Ironically, LillSnopp, China does have its share of superstitious beliefs. I am not just talking about degenerating research programs such as marxism-leninism, but about things like acupuncture, which are supported by traditional folk beliefs rather than science.
Unfortunately, no country I know is immune to superstition and magic. Homeopathy, for instance, is incredibly popular in India, France and Germany, and a large number of Argentinians still believe in psychoanalysis. (Alas, by your strict standards I'm afraid there are no "Western countries", period!)

And atheists are not necessarily invulnerable to weird beliefs in general (i.e. non-religious superstition). Comrade Stalin, for one, swallowed the crackpot biology of Trofim Lyssenko hook, line and sinker.

Trying to explain religion simply in terms of ignorance is a mistake, IMHO. I know of no study correlating low IQ with religious belief. And everyday experience shows this is simply a false assumption. The reductionist position of equating atheism with intelligence and theism with stupidity is just as false as the one which identifies theism with morality and atheism with a lack of morality.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:02 pm

Ironically, LillSnopp, China does have its share of superstitious beliefs. I am not just talking about degenerating research programs such as marxism-leninism, but about things like acupuncture, which are supported by traditional folk beliefs rather than science.
Unfortunately, no country I know is immune to superstition and magic. Homeopathy, for instance, is incredibly popular in India, France and Germany, and a large number of Argentinians still believe in psychoanalysis.

Don't quite get it

Acupunture and homeopathy, as far as I know, are alternatives (not sustitutes) to Western medicine based on observation and stadistics to reaction, aren't they? Not exactly magic and superstition. And what does this comment about Argentinians "believing" in psychoanalysis suppose to mean? Perhaps you are being ironic and I miss it?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:13 pm

trencacloscas wrote:
Ironically, LillSnopp, China does have its share of superstitious beliefs. I am not just talking about degenerating research programs such as marxism-leninism, but about things like acupuncture, which are supported by traditional folk beliefs rather than science.
Unfortunately, no country I know is immune to superstition and magic. Homeopathy, for instance, is incredibly popular in India, France and Germany, and a large number of Argentinians still believe in psychoanalysis.
Don't quite get it Acupunture and homeopathy, as far as I know, are alternatives (not sustitutes) to Western medicine based on observation and stadistics to reaction, aren't they? Not exactly magic and superstition. And what does this comment about Argentinians "believing" in psychoanalysis suppose to mean? Perhaps you are being ironic and I miss it?

First, there is no such thing as "alternative" therapies. There are therapies that work and therapies that don't. That's it. People have died as a result of overreliance on "alternative" therapies and distrust of medicine.

Neither acupuncture nor homeopathy is based on observation or statistics. Acupuncture is based on the traditional metaphysical belief that there exists a fluid/gas/plasma/energy called "qi gong". This "qi" has never been seen or measured by any scientist. The "qi" is said to circulate the body through "meridians" no professor of anatomy has ever been able to identify.

Homeopathy is based on the theories of C.F.S. Hahnemann (1775-1843), who believed all illnesses developed from three main sources: syphillis, gonorrhea, and "the itch" (psora). He believed that "like cures like" (here is a curious paralell with sympathetic magic), and that the smaller the dose, the stronger the effect. Another homeopathic belief is that water has "memory" of the substances diluted in it, and that this memory can be triggered by shaking the dilution, even if no molecules of the original substance remain. Scientific and statistical studies have shown that the efficacy of homeopathic drugs is no better than that of a placebo.

Psychoanalysis is based on the pseudoscientific theories of Sigmund Freud, including concepts as ridiculous as the notion that women have "penis envy" and that their sexuality is essentially masochistic, among others.

All pretty close to magic and superstition, if you ask me...

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:29 pm

Dilettante wrote: Ironically, LillSnopp, China does have its share of superstitious beliefs. I am not just talking about degenerating research programs such as marxism-leninism, (1) but about things like acupuncture, which are supported by traditional folk beliefs rather than science.
Unfortunately, no country I know is immune to superstition and magic. Homeopathy, for instance, is incredibly popular in India, France and Germany, and a large number of Argentinians still believe in psychoanalysis. (Alas, by your strict standards I'm afraid there are no "Western countries", period!)

(2)And atheists are not necessarily invulnerable to weird beliefs in general (i.e. non-religious superstition). Comrade Stalin, for one, swallowed the crackpot biology of Trofim Lyssenko hook, line and sinker.

Trying to explain religion simply in terms of ignorance is a mistake, IMHO. (3)I know of no study correlating low IQ with religious belief. And everyday experience shows this is simply a false assumption. The reductionist position of equating atheism with intelligence and theism with stupidity is just as false as the one which identifies theism with morality and atheism with a lack of morality.

1. Anything wrong with Acupuncture ? You claim it does not work ?

2. Weird beliefs? You claim it to be weird, and what does "atheism" has to do with anything? I speak from myself. there is no "atheist" groups which i know of. But i can give plenty of Christian examples....

3. I dont need a study, i just need to use my eyes.

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:12 pm

LillSnopp wrote:

1. Anything wrong with Acupuncture ? You claim it does not work ?

2. Weird beliefs? You claim it to be weird, and what does "atheism" has to do with anything? I speak from myself. there is no "atheist" groups which i know of. But i can give plenty of Christian examples....

3. I dont need a study, i just need to use my eyes.

1. Of course it doesn't work. It's just an old folk belief with no scientific basis whatsoever.
2. Any biologist will tell you that Lyssenko was a crackpot. It's not just me. And yes, atheism does not have anything to do with it. That's my point. Atheism, by itself, does not make you a critical thinker just as theism doesn't automatically make you a fool. Intelligent theists and foolish atheists do exist.
3. I wouldn't trust my eyes. Our observations are often selective (selection bias is a common phenomenon). I find rigorous scientific studies to be more objective than limited personal experience.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:58 pm

Psychoanalysis is based on the pseudoscientific theories of Sigmund Freud

Sorry for the ignorance but medicine is not my field at all.

I'm not sure about homeopathy, probably you are right, but I guess acupunturists can claim some results.

Anyway, I don't understand what is that ridiculous assertion of yours about psychoanalisis and Argentinians. Moreover, Freud might be wrong in some respects but not in other and he founded the discipline. I thought psychology is still considered a medical science, isn't it?