What Is The Best Way To Deal With Christianity?

[BlueGiant]

!= is a programmer version of not-equals, most know it from C (or Java, or Python, or too many languages to list).  

 

As for helping Christianity weaken, I don't think you have to.  You're already looking at a country where nones, (not athiest, but actual, none-of-the-above), already number roughly 20% of the general population (I think that matches the percentage claiming Evangelical Christianity). Really the best thing to do is to live well.  Show that you're not something to be feared, and actually have a better life without xtianity.  

 

If nothing else, it gives you the feeling you get when you come back home after getting your life together, and you see the guys who  bullied you still flipping burgers at McDonalds.

[bornagainathiest]

Well, here's my 50 cents worth.

 

Christianty will be weakened according to how well or how badly it deals with evidence that challenges what it claims to be true.

 

For instance, Young Earth Creationism sets itself up as a 'soft' target, by it's rigid adherence to scripture.  By holding that the universe is just 6,000 years old, YEC's open themselves up to ridicule from a skeptical public.  More science-savvy Christians, like the Theistic Evolutionists, rightly worry that the Creationists are bringing Christianity and Jesus Christ into disrepute, with their anachronistic p.o.v.  You can see this played out (ad nauseaum) in the General Theology section of Christianforums.com.  Here, in the Origins Theology sub-forum, the YECs and the TEs go at each other, neither side giving way and each side convinced that the other is damaging Christianity, while they are protecting it. 

 

Let them, I say. 

In their desire to strengthen Christianity, they're actually destroying it from within.  The only role we need to play is to broadcast this information as far and wide as possible.  Doing this will show that the infighting, divisions and internal strife that's always been a hallmark of Christianity, is alive and well in the 21st century.

 

I wrote this, late last year, in reply to a Christian apologist calling himself Badger.  At the time, there was some suspicion that he might have been a sock-puppet for OrdinaryClay.  He wasn't.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:59 AM

(In case Badger isn't OrdinaryClay)

Please compare and contrast.

Christianity says that we are the reason God made the universe.

Christianity says that we are the pinnacle of God's creation.

Christianity says we are center of and reason for... EVERYTHING.

 

1543.

Nicolaus Copernicus dies.  He began the first Cosmological Revolution, which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. 

1785-1913

Various geologists discover the true age of the Earth. They conclude that humans have occupied it for a vanishingly brief moment in it's full, 4.5 billion year history.  Johhny-come-lately humans are therefore displaced from being the cause and reason of it's existence.

1859.

Charles Darwin publishes, 'On the Origin of Species', which displaces man from his previous status as God's special creation.

1923.

Edwin Hubble proves that the universe extends far beyond the Milky Way galaxy.  He displaces our galaxy from the center of reality and demonstrates that it's simply one of billions of galaxies.

Mid-20th century.

Various geologists discover evidence for many mass extinction throughout geological time.  The worst eliminated 96% of all marine species and 70% of all land species. This displaces human beings from their supposed role as the prime reason for life's existence and evolution. 

1980-2000.

Cosmologists discover that ordinary matter (you, me, planets, stars, etc.) makes up less than 5% of the universe - the bulk being dark matter and dark energy.  Humans are once again displaced from a central, special or priveleged position in reality.  The 'stuff' we are made of makes us an unimportant side-show in the cosmic sweep of things.

1995-today.

Astronomers discover extrasolar planets in increasing numbers and with increasing similarity to the Earth.  The data indicates that billions of Earth-like planets exist in our galaxy.  Therefore, it's only a matter of time before the Earth is displaced from it's unique and special position as the favored abode of life.

2000-2005 / 2005-2008

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the observable universe is homogeneous - it looks the same in every direction.  This displaces the Milky Way galaxy from any kind of special or priveleged location in the universe, making it just one of billions of galaxies.

2009-2013/15.

The Planck spacecraft cosmological data will be released in the first quarter of next year.  If the predicted patterns are found in the Cosmic Microwave Background, this will be the 'smoking gun' evidence for the existence of other universes.  This will call Genesis 1:1 into question, displacing God from His role of creator. Such a Multiverse will also blow the Fine-Tuned universe argument out of the water.

 

See the trend?

Science advances - Christianity retreats.

The clock is ticking and the 'wiggle' room is getting smaller and smaller!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, repeating my earlier statement...

"Christianty will be weakened according to how well or how badly it deals with evidence that challenges what it claims to be true."

...the future challenges to Christianity will, imho, be highly damaging ones that it will struggle to deal with. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I remember that post, BAA, and I remember Badger.  Miss the dude.

 

Strong proponents of the Teleological Argument of course deny that your timeline shows anything relevant to the argument, since they deny that it's a "god of the gaps" argument.  Don't they argue that ID/IC and the other corrolaries of the TA are the Best Explanation of all natural phenomena?

 

When they do this, though, they commit themselves either to holding that either  the Designer also designed repugnant horrors like certain kinds of parasites, or these things and/or their repugnant effects came in through the Fall, or that what we think are repugnant (guinea worm, etc.) are not so.  They have to explain why the designer had built into it eons of dinosaurs hanging out on earth only to be snuffed by an asteroid (if that's what happened). 

 

So, does the TA inevitably bring us to the POE, or, as Lewis called it, the Problem of Pain?  It looks to me as though the TA is an example of a solution that only opens up more, and less soluble, problems.  That's a huge strike against it as a theory.  I suppose its adherents have to argue that our moral reactions to implications of the TA are irrelevant or distorted.

[bornagainathiest]

Ficino,

 

Those Christians who hold to the TA and those who are Theistic Evolutionists are, in my experience, from the more intelligent and better read echelons of Christianity. Ok, I know that sounds elitist, but please critique my argument.  Should it fail to meet the test, then I'll happily retract it.

 

A literal take on the Bible demands much less of a person than a non-literal one. 

If a Christian can't find it within themselves to read scripture literally, then they're obliged to grapple with a non-literal understanding of it.  Doing that means understanding what allegory, symbolism and metaphor are.  It also means researching and grasping the cultural, historical and linguistic context in which the Bible was written.  It means familiarizing themselves with OT Hebrew and NT Greek.  And probably a whole lot more.

 

TE's attempt to synthesize an understanding of God that embraces up-to-the-moment science and the words of an ancient book.  To do this they need to do all or most of the above (allegory, thru to Greek) and be up to speed on the relevant parts of modern science.  This isn't small potatoes.  To be a half-decent TE, you need to get a good grounding in astronomy, geology, genetics, evolutionary biology and probably some other stuff too.

 

I contend that it's far, far harder to be a Theistic Evolutionist Christian than to be a Literalist Creationist one. Harder, as in, more demanding of smarts. I'd also contend that it's much more difficult to hold to the Teleological Argument than it is to simply say, "God did it, because the Bible says so!"  Same reason as before.  To hold to the TA and defend it, you've got to understand it.  I.e.,what it's premises are, how they relate to each other, how they relate to the conclusion, what is and what isn't acceptable evidence to base it's premises on, the pitfalls of logical fallacies, etc., etc.

 

Similarly, TE Christians are the ones who are obliged to understand a whole raft of formal arguments and scientific concepts, which their literalist brethren aren't.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Fine-Tuned Universe Argument, epistimological arguments, phenomonological arguments, philosophical arguments, metaphysical arguments, the in's and out's of the ID/IC debate and so on. 

 

As evidence Ficino, I'd like to cite the examples of Thumbelina (Biblical literalist) and OrdinaryClay (Theistic Evolutionist and promoter of the Teleological Argument).  The Thumb rarely strays beyond scripture and never, ever gets into a debate about extra-Biblical evidence for any of her scripture-based claims.  She's a one-tune instrument.  On the other hand, OC is quite comfortable in almost any sphere of debate, Biblical or not. He's knows how to turn any debate to his advantage thru semantic chicanery.  As far as I can see, it's much more difficult path for OC than it is for Thumbelina.

 

Now, what does this mean in the light of my words about the highly damaging challenges that Christianity will face in the future?  Here are my conclusions.

 

1.

Biblical Literalist (Creationist) Christianity will still appeal to those who are predisposed to that mindset.  Nothing will stop that or change that or them. However, as science supplies more and better explanations to the big questions, the Creationists will find themselves increasingly marginalized. 

 

2.

Because Theistic Evolutionist Christians build their arguments on the basis of a marriage of science and scripture, they'll be caught it the jaws of an ever-tightening vise.  How can they continue to reconcile science with scripture, when science is demolishing more and more of what Christianity asserts to be true?  Yes, it can be done, but only by an increasingly tiny minority.  The William Lane Craig's and the OrdinaryClay's of the Christian faith.  Only they have the smarts to understand the increasingly convoluted and complex webs of arguments that are needed to insert God into reality.

 

3.

The bulk of the populace, will simply ignore both options.  Biblical literalism will seem increasingly ridiculous and Theistic Evolution, increasingly difficult to understand.  Thus, Christianity will be weakened and damaged from both ends. 

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

[Adrianime]

 

Killing people and being an atheist != Killing people in the name of atheism.

 

(!=) means (does not equal) by the way.

 

I've never seen "!=" used before, since normally =/= is used.

 

Yes, as Blue Giant said, it's from programming.  Sorry, I didn't know of the =/= version.

[♦ ficino ♦]

BAA, I continue to learn a lot from your contributions.  In response to your #79, I'll just say for now that I've looked at a few websites of Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists!) in the last few days, mostly ones that have been linked elsewhere on here.  I think one guy is a Dr. Ross.  I don't know how to save what I write in reply and come back to it later (is there a way to do this?), so I can't go look for the website now.  Anyway, he explicitly denies that his ID/IC/TA enterprise is a "god of the gaps" argument.  He even claims that ID assumptions can generate testable hypotheses.  I'll see if I can find the website later and link it. 

 

While I mull over more of what you wrote, may I ask what you think of my suggestion that the TA leads to problems of value?  Its adherents like to talk about the beauty, lawlikeness, mathematical simplicity, and goodness of "creation."  I don't think they do justice to the aspects of the universe that look "haywired."  If their Designer gets credit for the good and beautiful aspects of the universe, that designer also should be made responsible for the horrific, evil, ugly, and downright wasteful aspects of it - otherwise, big time Special Pleading is going on.  And those ugly aspects of the universe make the TA fail as a step toward proof of the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, unless the apologist can show that there's nothing wrong with those aspects (the Calvinist:  God is the author of evil as well as of good;  the Arminian:  God had to make room for evil so that there could be free will -- blah blah, we know the songs).  So, TA,  welcome to the problem of evil.

 

Edited to add:

 

Yes, Hugh Ross.  Someone else linked this a few days ago (you?  or Ravenstar?):

 

http://www.reasons.org/

[bornagainathiest]

Ficino,

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the Teleological Argument is not being presented by Christian apologists in a fair or unbiased way.  Special Pleading?  Is that what you call it when only one side of an argument is promoted and the other ignored or glossed over?  Hmmm...

 

Well, perhaps a list of the nasty  things the Designer is solely responsible for will help redress the balance?  I justify the usage of the word, 'solely' because the list should be seen in the context of this...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg ...where humans appear only in the last seconds of the count of time. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A Balanced Teleological Argument

(Listing Natural Evils)

 

1. Death

The death of every living organism, plant, animal and person, from about 4 billion years ago to today.  Death is God's doing and making.  It existed long, long before the first humans evolved and we have no responsibility for it.  There is no moral, ethical or theological reason why anyone but God should be held accountable for this natural evil. If we attribute life to God, we must also attribute death to him.

 

2. Natural Disasters

All natural disasters are examples of natural evil.  Even if we qualify this and attribute some disasters (from scripture) to God's punitive actions against certain people, the remaining 99.999% of Earth's history has been human-free.  Therefore, every earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, landslide, tornado, hurricane, avalanche, blizzard, flood, avalanche, wildfire, drought and heatwave is down to God.  All of the animal life killed, maimed and/or orphaned by these countless events are His responsibility and His alone.  He may have created life, but He's also ended it too.

 

2a. Mass Extinctions

This kind of natural evil is an important sub-set of #2 and cannot be ignored, overlooked or downplayed.  As well as three Snowball Earth episodes (where the oceans froze over), we have to also factor in five major and seventeen minor mass extinction events - the worst of which decimated 96% of marine species and 70% of land-based ones.  The wholesale slaughter of animals by global firestorms, acid rain, asphyxiation, heat stroke, poisoning, starvation and radiation-induced cancers was solely God's doing.  On balance, His apparent 'niceness' is cancelled out by His 'nastiness'.

 

3. Birth Defects

Every occurence of this natural evil, prior to man's evolution, is God's responsibility. (And that's letting him off the hook for the last 2 million years or so.)  God either killed billions of unborn animals or handicapped them from birth, making them unfit to survive for long.  If this is just the natural balance of life (between predator and prey) why invoke the super-natural hand of a Designer at all?  And why do so to explain only the beautiful aspects of nature?  If the natural evil of birth defects came about long before the evolution of humans, who else is responsible for this all this ugliness, disability, suffering and death?  A balanced argument presents all the evidence, not just the appealing parts of it.

 

4. Disease

From time immemorial animals have suffered from diseases.  The very same arguments outlined in #3, also apply here. A proper presentation of the Teleological Argument requires a full picture of reality - warts and all.  The beautiful is counterpointed by the painful, the disfiguring and the ugly. Therefore who is responsible for every tumor, abscess, running sore, rash, lesion, scab and ulcer to afflict any animal, prior to man?   Who is the cause of every sickness, every epidemic, every degenerative disorder, every agonizing syndrome and every virulent infection that has ever afflicted any animal before the advent of man?  Same answer as before - if you want to be unbiased.

 

Care to help me out here, Ficino?  Or anyone else?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[emshi21]

To add to that, could you mention things like:

 

• Our major source of light/heat/life in general also gives you skin cancer and can kill you?
• Humans have an immune system, so God obviously created us with disease and death in mind, despite the fact that Christianity states that we die because we sinned?
• (To steal Dara O'Briain's idea) The appendix? In general? Why give us something that will just randomly kill us?

I'm not entirely sure that this is relevant, or right, just my two cents.

[TheBeast]

 

 

 

 

Wow. I've seen so much hatred on this thread, including the OP's first and second post, that I have to wonder if some people here at ex-C are any different from the witch hunters, or the priests involved in the inquisition. Just because some of us don't believe in Christianity anymore, should we wish it's downfall? Everything in Christianity's history that is bad and awful is now represented by us?

By us, I mean Ex-Christians. I don't give people that were always atheists the same benefit of the doubt, because he can best pity who has felt the woe.

If Christianity is going to die, let it die on it's own IMHO, that's the best way to deal with it.  It may have hurt us (again, ex-C's), but who are we to wish it's downfall just because it exists?

 

The internet? This reminds me of Brian Griffin saying to Stuie Griffin, "if you don't like it, go on the internet and complain, like everybody else" in an episode of Family Guy.

That's a terrible anaology. Who has ever "witch-hunted" anyone in the name of atheism? You can take your self-righteousness and shove it, ok. 

 

Why shouldn't I wish the downfall of the of an ideology that I despise? I have nothing but contempt for a religion that continues to leave a residue of its stench upon society. The sooner it fades into irrelevance, the better for all of us.

 

Is it ok to believe in whatever you want? Not unless you're willing to defend the beliefs of white supremicists too. Some beliefs are not worthy of respect.

 

 

 

Sorry TheBeast.

 

I didn't mean to harsh your thread, but there have been many thousands of people that "witch hunted" and killed millions of Christians in the name of (or because of) Atheism. I wasn't defending Christianity, and you know it. I said let it die on it's own.

 

As to your strawman, yes, I'm willing to defend the beliefs of white supremicists, but that's because I live in the State of Michigan, and so thereby the U.S.of A; where everybody has the right to believe what they want.   

I don't condone the actions of so many groups, including but not limited to white supremicists, the new black panthers, the UAW, the Muslims, people that like mushrooms on their pizza's and so on, if they break laws and harass others because of their beliefs.

 

You posted "What is the best way to deal with Christianity" in the lion' den. I gave my answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To the folks that think I thought that this thread was about actually killing people, I have to ask, where did you get that from what I said?

Atheism isn't an ideology, it's a lack of belief in gods. Communism isn't atheism. You may not be trying to defend Christianity, but your arguments seem to have a fundamentalist-Christian apologetic feel to them. If you're a recent deconvert, I guess I can understand that.

 

As to" my strawman", what strawman? I just asked a question. I agree that everyone should have a right to believe as they want to, but not all beliefs should be socially acceptable or respected. There is a bunch of BS peddled by Christianity that should never be accepted as morally right by objective thinking people. It's my hope that most people eventually come to see Christianity in its true light, that its no better than white supremicism.

 

The Beast,

 

I haven't been able to answer in the last couple of days (I'm usually here every-other day) because life happened to me while I was making other plans. I hate that when that happens!

 

There have been quite a few posts because of what I said, so I'll try to answer you and some of them in this post. I'm not that good at writing my thoughts sometimes, because (I think) I tend to write the way I would talk in person where the back and forth is more immediate. Because of that, I often am either misunderstood or come off as being dumber than I actually am. This isn't an excuse, just a reason. Also, I'm not trying to walk back anything I said, and I am willing to admit when I'm wrong, if I'm wrong.

 

That being out of the way...

 

Of course I didn't mean witch hunt in the literal sense of the Puritans in Salem, for example, putting women under water and if she floats she's a witch so kill her, and if she drowns then she wasn't a witch. I said it because I don't see why any one would want to hasten the death of anyone's belief system, without offering something better, if that belief system isn't doing them any harm, and in fact may in some way be helping them cope with a chaotic world. The key here I guess is "without offering something better" to them. 

I see where some people are so eager to jump on anything Christian that they will do so at the drop of a hat, and will drop the hat themselves if need be, and I wonder why. Why bother? What's the big deal?   I don't know in my personal experience of anyone that has been hurt by Christianity in the way I was, but maybe two things are true; one, that they were but didn't say so to me and I didn't see it, and two, maybe others have had a different experience in their lives with Christianity than I have had in mine. In that case, I think conversation is important, whether face to face or on a site such as this one. There are some, however, that will throw (what I perceive as)  venom towards anyone that doesn't think just like they do about Christianity.  Maybe their experience was different than mine. That's what I meant by "witch-hunt", and I've done it myself I suppose, now that I think of it.  

 

Now history...

Adrianime,  when I said "try history" I assumed that you would know that the purge of religions and thus the killing of millions of Christians (and of course others) under the Lennin-Marxist led governments of the twentieth century would be self evident. Then it devolved into what history is; i.e. history in general vs. specific events in history.   

Some of your answers to O.C. on this make a lot of sense, but I still maintain that atheism, as it was then, led to millions of people being murdered. Saying it was a political system, and not atheism, may be correct, but I don't see it that way. It isn't fair to say that Christianity is responsible for deaths because of a Pope's religion but then to say that the killing of Christians under atheist regimes is because of politics, is it?  

 

That's the best I can do for now.

1) I wouldn't wish the death of a belief system without offering something better. I think an exchange of Christianity for science is more than a fair swap.

 

2. I wasn't especially (is that the right word?) hurt by Christianity while I believed. In fact, I've only come to realize the true harm Christianity can cause since I stopped believing. I throw venom out at assholes, but admit there is the odd example of callteral damage. I'm working on it.

 

3) You'll need to do a lot better to prove a link between disbelief in gods and state sanctioned deaths. Christianity was used as an excuse to murder people. Remove Christisanity and you remove the excuse. AFAIAC atheism has never been used as an excuse to kill anyone.

[Checkmate]

This thread is both funny and ironic.

 

You postulate "What is the best way to deal with Christianity?", and then the Christian appears and you are all at a loss as to how to deal with him/her.

 

Bwahhahahahahahahahahah!!!

 

You can't "deal with Christianity".  Nor can you deal with religion in general.  You're up against a force of nature as irresistable and inevitable as death and gravity...

 

STUPIDITY.

 

Humans are stupid, fearful, gullible, fanciful nitwits who will create and cling to ANY nonsense that allows them to cope with Life.  Religion is just one of MANY retarded ideas humans embrace.  And until humans EVOLVE into something more intelligent there isn't a damned thing anyone can do to change these facts.

 

So sit back with your popcorn, laugh and enjoy the Carnival of Man.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for the input, Checkmate.

 

Your interesting take on this thread and the human condition in general is duly noted.   As is your willingness to help others escape from the same stupidity that ate up seven years of your life.

 

I'm also glad we've given you something funny and ironic to laugh at. 

 

So... please knock yourself out!

 

BAA.

[RipVanWinkle]

Checkmate: You sound exactly like some stuff I recently read written by Bertrand Russell. And I Agree with you both. But we must always remember that we are humans, too.    bill

[mymistake]

You postulate "What is the best way to deal with Christianity?", and then the Christian appears and you are all at a loss as to how to deal with him/her.

 

 

I'm not seeing that.  Clay showed up here with the usual nonsense.  His lies were quickly dispatched.  He doesn't intimidate me.  I can't imagine him intimidating anybody else.  Dealing with Christians is easy.  Expose their fallacies for what they are and then be amused when they kill their own credibility.  What was the problem?

 

 

 

[Checkmate]

Thanks for the input, Checkmate.

 

Your interesting take on this thread and the human condition in general is duly noted.   As is your willingness to help others escape from the same stupidity that ate up seven years of your life.

 

I'm also glad we've given you something funny and ironic to laugh at. 

 

So... please knock yourself out!

 

BAA.

You're welcome, BAA.  I'm so glad that you've given me your permission and approval to find things funny and ironic.  Up until this moment I was totally unaware that I needed this from you.  Silly me.  I thought I was free to do whatever I dang well pleased!  Well, now that I have your approval I can rest easy, huh?

 

Now, let's deal with the remainder of your drivel, shall we?  To wit....

 

"Your willingness to help others escape from the same stupidity that ate up seven years of your life."  This statement of yours is so rife with nonsense that I'll be forced to deal with it piecemeal.

 

You imply many things in this statement.  ALL of which are demonstrably false.

 

Point 1.  I'll begin with the Biggie.  My wilingness to help others escape.  I have never stated anywhere, nor have I ever implied that I wouldn't "help" someone escape Christianity.  IF you can find this proof, I will be glad to recant.

 

For your information, a few years back a young woman came to this forum looking for help to escape Christianity.  And WE gave her help.  Myself included.  We spent days giving her counsel, and resources and cyber hugs as she dealt with her doubts and fears.  I don't recall if she ever quit the faith, but that's besides the point.

 

The POINT is I HELPED HER!  So, need I tell you graphically what you can do with your unjust and incorrect implications as to my alleged behavior?  I hope not.

 

Point 2.  Christians RARELY seek "help" in leaving the faith.  It's pretty much a do-it-yourself endeavor.  I DID IT, as did nearly everyone I know of.  However, if you come across anyone HERE who is seeking such help, I'll be only too glad to assist.

 

Point 3.  I could be wrong, but it SEEMS as if you believe THIS thread is aimed at helping Christians escape their faith.  [if you don't believe this, then why this unnecessary side trip?]  THIS thread is dedicated to combating Christianity.  Formulating battle strategies and such.  Doesn't sound like we're trying to "help" anyone escape their faith.  Nor does it sound like anyone is asking for such help.  So, why bring it up in a failed attempt to villify and shame me?

 

In conclusion, your attempt at sarcasm was weak at best, and your attempt at criticism was stupid and borderline libel [since you all but accused me of not wanting to help someone, thereby besmirching my character in print.]

 

[There.  You see?  I CAN form sentences and articulate my rage without resorting to profanity.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. - GO FUCK YOURSELF!

[Checkmate]

Checkmate: You sound exactly like some stuff I recently read written by Bertrand Russell. And I Agree with you both. But we must always remember that we are humans, too.    bill

WOW.  Ummm, thanks Bill.  Being compared in any way to Russell is indeed high praise.  I don't believe I deserve it, but thank you all the same.

 

And yes, I DO remember that we're all human.  [Well, at least YOU people are.  I'm a misanthrope! ] 

 

But all kidding aside, the fact that we are all humans was the thrust of my point.  HUMANS are fucked in the head, and any attempt to unfuck US is going to take time on an evolutionary scale.

 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't make any effort to help the evolutionary process along.  I'm saying "Don't hold your breath waiting for any change."

 

And meanwhile, recognize that ALL is transient nonsense and we'll soon be dead and won't have to deal with this crap any more.  So enjoy!

[mymistake]

Well that escalated quickly.

[Checkmate]

 

You postulate "What is the best way to deal with Christianity?", and then the Christian appears and you are all at a loss as to how to deal with him/her.

 

 

I'm not seeing that.  Clay showed up here with the usual nonsense.  His lies were quickly dispatched.  He doesn't intimidate me.  I can't imagine him intimidating anybody else.  Dealing with Christians is easy.  Expose their fallacies for what they are and then be amused when they kill their own credibility.  What was the problem?

Nothing at all.  Did I SAY there was a problem?  [Other than humans being naturally stupid and predisposed to idiocy.]  Or did I just say I found something funny and ironic?

 

As are most attempts to fight faith.  Faith is what people BELIEVE.  Good luck fighting THAT.

 

Don't think I'm suggesting you DON'T deal with Christianity.  We must.  It's like taking out the garbage.  If it's not done everyday, we'll soon be over run by trash.

 

But for pity's sake, aren't I allowed to spot SOME fucking humor on this miserable mud ball of a planet?

[mymistake]

 

 

You postulate "What is the best way to deal with Christianity?", and then the Christian appears and you are all at a loss as to how to deal with him/her.

 

 

I'm not seeing that.  Clay showed up here with the usual nonsense.  His lies were quickly dispatched.  He doesn't intimidate me.  I can't imagine him intimidating anybody else.  Dealing with Christians is easy.  Expose their fallacies for what they are and then be amused when they kill their own credibility.  What was the problem?

Nothing at all.  Did I SAY there was a problem?  [Other than humans being naturally stupid and predisposed to idiocy.]  Or did I just say I found something funny and ironic?

 

You wrote " . . . you are all at a loss as to how to deal with . . . " which does not match what I am seeing in this thread.

 

 

 

 

As are most attempts to fight faith.  Faith is what people BELIEVE.  Good luck fighting THAT.

 

 

Most people now believe that the Earth goes around the Sun.  Change happens slowly but it does happen.

 

Don't think I'm suggesting you DON'T deal with Christianity.  We must.  It's like taking out the garbage.  If it's not done everyday, we'll soon be over run by trash.

 

But for pity's sake, aren't I allowed to spot SOME fucking humor on this miserable mud ball of a planet?

 

Asking you to clarify does not infringe.

[Adrianime]

Hmm, now I'm actually interested if BornAgainAtheist actually meant his comment in the way Checkmate seems to have understood it (sarcastically with a bit of mockery).  Or if he meant it how I initially read it (light heartedly and sincerely).  Now that I've re-read it, I see it can be taken either way! 

[Checkmate]

 

 

 

You postulate "What is the best way to deal with Christianity?", and then the Christian appears and you are all at a loss as to how to deal with him/her.

 

 

I'm not seeing that.  Clay showed up here with the usual nonsense.  His lies were quickly dispatched.  He doesn't intimidate me.  I can't imagine him intimidating anybody else.  Dealing with Christians is easy.  Expose their fallacies for what they are and then be amused when they kill their own credibility.  What was the problem?

Nothing at all.  Did I SAY there was a problem?  [Other than humans being naturally stupid and predisposed to idiocy.]  Or did I just say I found something funny and ironic?

 

You wrote " . . . you are all at a loss as to how to deal with . . . " which does not match what I am seeing in this thread.

 

 

 

 

>As are most attempts to fight faith.  Faith is what people BELIEVE.  Good luck fighting THAT.

 

 

Most people now believe that the Earth goes around the Sun.  Change happens slowly but it does happen.

 

Don't think I'm suggesting you DON'T deal with Christianity.  We must.  It's like taking out the garbage.  If it's not done everyday, we'll soon be over run by trash.

 

But for pity's sake, aren't I allowed to spot SOME fucking humor on this miserable mud ball of a planet?

 

Asking you to clarify does not infringe.

 

Without a doubt you're [WE'RE] all well adept at ARGUING and DISMANTLING any Christians position.  But...is that it?  If this thread is only about HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH CHRISTIANS, then I withdraw all my complaints.  Because you guys are doing great in this regard.  But winning arguments won't change anyone's views.  They'll keep believing no matter what.

 

Maybe it's my fault for believing that "dealing with" Christianity implied "getting rid of."  If so, then I do apologize.  SINCERELY.

 

And yes, change happens slowly.  I've said it myself once or twice.

 

Does this clarify?  Or must we take up even MORE of Dave's bandwidth with pointless yammering?

[Adrianime]

Deal with means get rid of in the context of this thread.

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

 

 

Wow. I've seen so much hatred on this thread, including the OP's first and second post, that I have to wonder if some people here at ex-C are any different from the witch hunters, or the priests involved in the inquisition. Just because some of us don't believe in Christianity anymore, should we wish it's downfall? Everything in Christianity's history that is bad and awful is now represented by us?

By us, I mean Ex-Christians. I don't give people that were always atheists the same benefit of the doubt, because he can best pity who has felt the woe.

If Christianity is going to die, let it die on it's own IMHO, that's the best way to deal with it.  It may have hurt us (again, ex-C's), but who are we to wish it's downfall just because it exists?

 

The internet? This reminds me of Brian Griffin saying to Stuie Griffin, "if you don't like it, go on the internet and complain, like everybody else" in an episode of Family Guy.

That's a terrible anaology. Who has ever "witch-hunted" anyone in the name of atheism? You can take your self-righteousness and shove it, ok. 

 

Why shouldn't I wish the downfall of the of an ideology that I despise? I have nothing but contempt for a religion that continues to leave a residue of its stench upon society. The sooner it fades into irrelevance, the better for all of us.

 

Is it ok to believe in whatever you want? Not unless you're willing to defend the beliefs of white supremicists too. Some beliefs are not worthy of respect.

 

 

 

Sorry TheBeast.

 

I didn't mean to harsh your thread, but there have been many thousands of people that "witch hunted" and killed millions of Christians in the name of (or because of) Atheism. I wasn't defending Christianity, and you know it. I said let it die on it's own.

 

As to your strawman, yes, I'm willing to defend the beliefs of white supremicists, but that's because I live in the State of Michigan, and so thereby the U.S.of A; where everybody has the right to believe what they want.   

I don't condone the actions of so many groups, including but not limited to white supremicists, the new black panthers, the UAW, the Muslims, people that like mushrooms on their pizza's and so on, if they break laws and harass others because of their beliefs.

 

You posted "What is the best way to deal with Christianity" in the lion' den. I gave my answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To the folks that think I thought that this thread was about actually killing people, I have to ask, where did you get that from what I said?

Atheism isn't an ideology, it's a lack of belief in gods. Communism isn't atheism. You may not be trying to defend Christianity, but your arguments seem to have a fundamentalist-Christian apologetic feel to them. If you're a recent deconvert, I guess I can understand that.

 

As to" my strawman", what strawman? I just asked a question. I agree that everyone should have a right to believe as they want to, but not all beliefs should be socially acceptable or respected. There is a bunch of BS peddled by Christianity that should never be accepted as morally right by objective thinking people. It's my hope that most people eventually come to see Christianity in its true light, that its no better than white supremicism.

 

The Beast,

 

I haven't been able to answer in the last couple of days (I'm usually here every-other day) because life happened to me while I was making other plans. I hate that when that happens!

 

There have been quite a few posts because of what I said, so I'll try to answer you and some of them in this post. I'm not that good at writing my thoughts sometimes, because (I think) I tend to write the way I would talk in person where the back and forth is more immediate. Because of that, I often am either misunderstood or come off as being dumber than I actually am. This isn't an excuse, just a reason. Also, I'm not trying to walk back anything I said, and I am willing to admit when I'm wrong, if I'm wrong.

 

That being out of the way...

 

Of course I didn't mean witch hunt in the literal sense of the Puritans in Salem, for example, putting women under water and if she floats she's a witch so kill her, and if she drowns then she wasn't a witch. I said it because I don't see why any one would want to hasten the death of anyone's belief system, without offering something better, if that belief system isn't doing them any harm, and in fact may in some way be helping them cope with a chaotic world. The key here I guess is "without offering something better" to them. 

I see where some people are so eager to jump on anything Christian that they will do so at the drop of a hat, and will drop the hat themselves if need be, and I wonder why. Why bother? What's the big deal?   I don't know in my personal experience of anyone that has been hurt by Christianity in the way I was, but maybe two things are true; one, that they were but didn't say so to me and I didn't see it, and two, maybe others have had a different experience in their lives with Christianity than I have had in mine. In that case, I think conversation is important, whether face to face or on a site such as this one. There are some, however, that will throw (what I perceive as)  venom towards anyone that doesn't think just like they do about Christianity.  Maybe their experience was different than mine. That's what I meant by "witch-hunt", and I've done it myself I suppose, now that I think of it.  

 

Now history...

Adrianime,  when I said "try history" I assumed that you would know that the purge of religions and thus the killing of millions of Christians (and of course others) under the Lennin-Marxist led governments of the twentieth century would be self evident. Then it devolved into what history is; i.e. history in general vs. specific events in history.   

Some of your answers to O.C. on this make a lot of sense, but I still maintain that atheism, as it was then, led to millions of people being murdered. Saying it was a political system, and not atheism, may be correct, but I don't see it that way. It isn't fair to say that Christianity is responsible for deaths because of a Pope's religion but then to say that the killing of Christians under atheist regimes is because of politics, is it?  

 

That's the best I can do for now.

1) I wouldn't wish the death of a belief system without offering something better. I think an exchange of Christianity for science is more than a fair swap.

 

2. I wasn't especially (is that the right word?) hurt by Christianity while I believed. In fact, I've only come to realize the true harm Christianity can cause since I stopped believing. I throw venom out at assholes, but admit there is the odd example of callteral damage. I'm working on it.

 

3) You'll need to do a lot better to prove a link between disbelief in gods and state sanctioned deaths. Christianity was used as an excuse to murder people. Remove Christisanity and you remove the excuse. AFAIAC atheism has never been used as an excuse to kill anyone.

 

Wow. I said early on that atheists have killed "in the name of (or because of) atheism".  Let me answer your points one by one if I can, and the best I can...

 

1) Is an exchange of Christianity and science even possible? I mean where one is black and the other is white, or where one disproves the other?  I don't see where Christianity is opposed to science. Has any word of the Bible ever been proven false? Is science opposed to Christianity then? No. So what's to swap? Six of one for a half dozen of the other?

 

2) OK. Despite the smiley, I can't be sure if I am the asshole or the collateral damage.

 

3) This is where the rubber meets the road. Maybe looking at things through logical eyes blinds one to human nature. Has anyone ever said (and I'm borrowing some of this from someone else, but not verbatim) "I'm a Christian, so I'm going to kill you"? For the purpose of argument, let's say no. Has anyone ever said "I'm an atheist, so I'm going to kill you"? Again for the purpose of argument, no.  As I also posted earlier, in the New Testament where of course we learn of Christianity, we see that God now prefers to do his own killing. No Christian is ever called upon to kill anyone. Christians are told to lay up their swords and be as harmless as doves [end borrowing and I didn't really borrow that much]. 

So then, is it really fair to say that a Christian, in the name of (or because of) Christianity ever killed anyone? No more so than an atheist.  But again, both seem to have done so. What is true of one must be true of the other. People may not kill because of their beliefs, but to advance their cause. The question then is why? Must Christians survive at all costs? No, for they have something to gain through death.

What then does an atheist have to gain? Only what they may gain in this life, or what their progeny may gain. Is it then for certain that no atheist would kill because of their belief system and/or worldview?  To dismiss this out of hand is, I posit, to be illogical.

Logic is wonderful, and I am still it's student, but to dismiss human nature out of hand is an incorrect position to take, yeah?

 

People are tribal. People kill. To look at one's own side as being innocent while looking at the other side as being guilty is human nature. What drives human nature? Logic? Not when it comes to killing, unless in self-defense. There is a belief system in there somewhere, and the atheistic worldview is no exeption.

 

Take a step back, and consider the original point of this thread. We are posting on a thread, the premise of which is to seek ideas that would hasten the demise of Christianity. Take that to it's logical conclusion, and what happens?

 

I'm not saying that Jesus is God, but some sayings attributed to him make sense. We strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Please think about what I said on this thread. Not in snippets, but in toto.

[mymistake]

 

Has anyone ever said (and I'm borrowing some of this from someone else, but not verbatim) "I'm a Christian, so I'm going to kill you"? For the purpose of argument, let's say no. Has anyone ever said "I'm an atheist, so I'm going to kill you"? Again for the purpose of argument, no.  As I also posted earlier, in the New Testament where of course we learn of Christianity, we see that God now prefers to do his own killing. No Christian is ever called upon to kill anyone. Christians are told to lay up their swords and be as harmless as doves [end borrowing and I didn't really borrow that much]. 

So then, is it really fair to say that a Christian, in the name of (or because of) Christianity ever killed anyone? No more so than an atheist.  But again, both seem to have done so. What is true of one must be true of the other.

 

 

I see no logic here.  Sorry but the accused witches along with all the other groups Christians have killed or executed do count.  You clearly enjoy re-writing history but it didn't quite happen the way you imagine.  When a pope orders Christians to wage war and promises them spiritual rewards then that is killing for Christianity.  When a priest tries to cast out a non-existent demon and ends up killing the victim this is also killing for Christianity.  When a dictator kills all of his political threats and then blames atheism this is not killing for atheism.  Atheism didn't provide the motive for genocide.  Christianity did provide the motive for burning witches, waging crusades and casting out demons.

[Vigile]

 So then, is it really fair to say that a Christian, in the name of (or

because of) Christianity ever killed anyone? No more so than an

atheist.

 

Ever heard of the Spanish inquisitions?  Salem witch trials?  Uganda?  Gay bashing? The crusades?

 

Have you been living under a rock? 

[mymistake]

Deal with means get rid of in the context of this thread.

 

We are already doing that by using the interwebs and it is killing Christianity.  Okay, it's not happening overnight.  But the loss is steady.  Some day Christianity will be like Quakers.  There will be little pockets that have withdrawn from the rest of the world.  Take for example the Catholic Church has ran it's child molesting racket for decades or perhaps even centuries but now suddenly they can't cope anymore.  Too many people know too much and ideas cannot be contained or controlled.