Atheism Verses Christianity

[MrsLulu]

Since joining AB I have followed the threads regarding the above. Am I right in thinking there are more non-believing Abers than believers, or do the believers prefer not to get entangled with this subject. I myself believe.

[chrisgel]

Sharinghan --- The West Wing. Brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

[Sharingan]

Oh my word, that's where it originally stemmed from. I've never watched The West Wing- someone sent it to me via email- but I'll definately be watching it now.

[LazyGun]

That whole Dr. Laura letter has a really interesting back-story.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

It seems it has been doing the rounds, in one form or another, since around 2000, and has been attributed to several different authors - the most common attribution being to a James someoneoranother, who has denied being the author. Others have stepped forward, and as Chris points out with his link, it inspired a rather good segment in the West Wing.

As to the Atheism vs Christianity debate - Not sure that you can draw the conclusion that there are more non-believing ABers than believing ones based upon what gets posted in R&S. Only those committed to arguing about faith will post - that does not fairly reflect the majority of the AB population necessarily.

For myself, I dislike the fundamentalist and extremist end of religion and what it condones. I dislike the rejection of science and fact in favour of ideology, and the way religion is taught in schools. I dislike evangelising posts particularly, so will argue the toss.

I have no issue if an individual wishes to follow a religion, or whose life is improved through their faith, so long as they do not insist that their beliefs are worthy of automatic respect or deference, or that our society should be shaped and guided by deference to religious observance, or that the religious should be seen as the moral lodestones of our society...

[jim360]

It's seemed to me for a while that arguments about the morality of a religion (or usually the perceived lack of it) tend to miss the point. The only real issue, for me at least, is whether the central part of any religion (Abrahamic, anyway), that there is a God who watches over us and will judge us at some point, is true. Is there, or is there not, a God? If there is, then if we disagree with parts of His morality, we're the ones "in the wrong" by His eyes at least. If not, then the morals of a religion are based on a lie anyway so why bother picking holes in them?

Why I don't believe in God is for two main reasons: firstly I don't see that the Universe necessarily "needs" a God in order to exist, and secondly because I have had no personal experiences at all that could be called religious. There are other, deeper reasons why I have a problem with believing in the Christian God in particular, but the two reasons I gave above are the main ones. If someone could convince me that the Universe does need a God, or if I do have some sort of religious experience, then my views will hopefully change accordingly. All of the rest is just detail.

[sandyRoe]

Didn't Jesus deal with the question of lapidation by asking only those without sin themselves to cast the first stone?

[Sharingan]

But how does that and all of the other Old vs New testament contradictions tie in with the word of God being ' unchanging'?
I am not anti religion or anti atheism, but I am anti hypocrisy.

[naomi24]

Jim, An argument arising from evidence and reason is often described as ‘angry’. It’s not. It’s just unassailable fact.

MrsLulu, //unbelievers in Jesus//?

Christianity hadn’t been invented when Jesus was alive. He was a Jew.

[jim360]

Well some are reasoned posts, surely. Others are just downright angry, and often unreasoned to boot.

For all that sometimes I see things it's worth getting a little angry about. Some people's refusal even to engage in debate about their faith for example. Goodlife springs to mind for some reason...

[RATTER15]

Sharingan, thanks for that, I hope you don't mind i've borrowed it for FB :-))

[MrsLulu]

naomi24, I'm sure we all know that Jesus was a Jew. In the Bible He is often refered to as Jesus Christ or The Christ and that is why followers of Jesus became known as Christians.

[naomi24]

Jim, sorry I’m not with you. You were complaining about angry atheists, but now you’re talking about the refusal of the religious to engage in debate.

MrsLulu, //In the Bible He is often refered to as Jesus Christ or The Christ and that is why followers of Jesus became known as Christians.//

That’s because the New Testament was written by people who didn't know Jesus. Since then it has been amended many times to make the story fit the agenda. I’ve no doubt that during his lifetime Jesus was known neither as Jesus Christ or The Christ.

[jim360]

I'll see if I can clarify. It seems to me that some, though not all, posters on AB who are atheists are very angry whenever a religious debate rolls around. Not always with a reason, although sometimes it can be frustrating trying to have a reasoned discussion with someone who isn't interested in debating. So one can be angry legitimately, perhaps, about people who are just dogmatic about their faith. But it seems also that there is some anger even with those willing to discuss reasonably. A rare few, perhaps, but it's noticeable.

[naomi24]

jim, really? I see a lot of vitriol towards atheists coming from the religious which often seems to be excused, and a certain amount of frustration coming from the atheists, which often seems to be mis-interpreted, but I wouldn’t say that in general one is ‘angrier’ than the other.

[chakka35]

MrsLulu, you obviously don't know your Old Testament, which is where the atrocities referred to by RATTER are commended and sometimes demanded by your God.
You'd better do a bit of reading. I'd hate to think that you supported such things because, as religionists say, "it's in the bible".

That you plainly didn't know those things that naomi had to explain to you shows that you know little about the origins of Christianity either. More reading for you.

[jim360]

Well I could just be misreading things, it has been known. Text is a bad medium for conducting debates like this anyway, since it's easy to misread.

[Theland]

Well I don't know about owning a Canadian, the Quebs speak froggish and that would be tortuous on the ears. However, since I have to buy my attire from charity shops, and my latest outfit resembling a Japanese admiral, a slave or two to do my shopping would save me the embarrassment of venturing out in public.
But of course these rules were a nation building tool for the times, and have no place in 2013.
The Bible is a mixture of many kinds of writing, some containing THE truth, others containing truth, and there are different depths of understanding to satisfy both the new believer and the more mature and scholarly Christians, and the whole range in between.
Atheists proudly extol the virtue of their complete absence of any theory of how it all began, the believer at least has something to go on, something cannot come from nothing.
And, yes, to openly state ones belief does invite the slings and arrows etc.
Finally, the world today so resembles the world described in bible prophecy.
Here we go, the first bullet just missed me.

[jomifl]

In denial again? do have some elastoplast :-)

[chrisgel]

That's you off my Christmas card list then ^^^^ :)

[Theland]

Torah Torah Torah

[LazyGun]

Well I would argue that there is no such thing as "The Truth". There is as much half baked nonsense and superstition in the bible as there is anything approaching commonsense.

To argue that it is better to have a belief in a superstition or myth about the creation of the universe or the planet - faith, belief without evidence - that this is better than trying to formulate an objective understanding of the underlying mechanisms that actually form the universe is just silly and leads to the scientific illiteracy of many of the more evangelical believers....