Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[G4Z]

Fuddam, I will take you point by point, I am at work so my retort may not be as complete as I would like.

interesting piece, but ignores one essential point: the evidence

IF he truly was a Christian, then he would have evidence (ie his relationship, 2 way) that his subsequent conversion to atheism would not be able to explain.

I would venture he was born/raised into a Christian tradition, and it was this viewpoint he used to defend. Then, once he started doubting, it was simple for him to reject his original perception, because it was built on BLIND FAITH. Just like a kid learning that there is no Santa.

So pretty much your argument here is that he never was a Christian? There must be many people around who call themselves Christian but do not literally speak with god or hear god, I take it they are 'not Christian' as well. Basically your only a Christian if you adhere your denominations narrow definition of a Christian and you have an imaginary friend. You talk about having faith all of the time, are you saying that faith is not a requirement and that in fact you are sure because you have chatted with the big man himself, therefore leaving no room for faith? I thought faith was the basic tenant in any religion i.e you must believe what this book says in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence that there is a mythical man in the sky.

As to the specific objections he raises now, he is simply talking to the wrong people. As usual. Like a lot of people on this thread (and many others) who see God as a genocidal, sadistic maniac - selective reading can be used to justify any argument.

I think he said quite clearly that he read a lot of the bible and only realised that god is depicted as a homicidal maniac once he stater to look at it from a more objective point of view i.e 'is this the word of god' rather than 'this is the word of god and beyond fallible'. Let me put this another way, I am an ordinary bloke and I have never done anything I would consider evil (you may disagree on that), you believe that I will burn in hell because I reject the notion of a god don't you? Well, if I were to assume that there was a god and he gave me the free will not to believe in him why then would he punish me for using that free will? Sounds pretty cruel and sadistic to me.

His notion of 150 major religions, then 10,000 other religions etc is trite. He is giving each one equal validity, and if that were viable, they would all have
1) the same level of internal coherence
2) the same level of coherence with established historical fact
3) the same impact on lives of the believers
etc etc

Interesting you should say that all those many thousands of other religions are not as valid, are you saying that some ideas are less valid than others? (a sentiment I agree with as stated earlier) I think the idea of a virgin birth is patently absurd, therefore its less valid than the idea that Mary was playing away and far from the innocent virginal chosen one the bible makes out, wouldn't you agree?

dat ain't so.
I work a lot in the muslim world, and just to compare christianity and islam is an unfair contest. No, not because I'm a Christian, but because the *scriptures* of those religions have vastly different results when measured against the above criteria. The Quran, for one, has over 1500 revisions in the earliest known historical document. Over 1500 amendments, alterations, excisions etc, compared to the NT which has none other than the 45 recognised verses that in no way contradict the original scripture but support it (ie no conflict). And one always has to come back to the scriptures as ultimate reference (not to people).

blah blah blah. I assume I'm boring you.

Well, I really feel like injecting some comedy here but I will keep this conversation civil by simply saying that yes that little scripture argument bored me because I see no value in any of it and I certainly do not agree with your assertion that it is useful historical documentation. However your other points clearly do not bore me, otherwise I would not be sat here responding.

[fuddam]

1)Which is where the 34,000 christian 'sects' come in.

Catholics & Protestants & Anglicans (etc etc) all agree on the fundamentals - who Christ is, why he came to earth, salvation from sin and why it was necessary, etc. It's only in the application of scripture that they differ, which is not only a non-issue but to be expected, since human beings will only have an imperfect grasp of perfect truth. People often resent the 'interpretation' of scripture, wanting a single perfect understanding - how can that be so, since context changes through time? Not only within a culture but within individual circumstance. That quite aside from man's imperfect nature.

2)Again, fiction can be set in historical times. It doesn't make the fiction true.

Agreed, but if ongoing historical research supports scripture, rather than negating it, then it brings a certain respect for the words written in scripture. For example, if every single reference to a historical person within the Bible was ultimately proven to be true through non-scriptural sources, how would that impact your perception of the Bible? Your constant claim that there never was a living person Jesus would look rather hollow, n'est pas? Well, since the secular British Museum is starting to use scripture on its walls (for one), your claim as to the absurdity of the Bible is beginning to look less......empirically based.

The bible has many contradictions, mistranslations and omissions, as previously discussed! Two of the gospels basically consist of amendments to another missing work!

nope, you're talking out of your head on that one. Go on, quote some more skeptic websites. With a little time and research, I would boldy venture in a kirkian fashion that your claims can be countered.

Many of these 150 religions have no scripture.This is really your third 'argument', which is simply that your chosen religion is best. That's no argument at all! I think a lot of believers of other religions would say that! The reality is it has no more validity than any of those other 149 religions, and that includes Scientology and the Jedi Knights (4th largest religion in Britain)!

From a skeptic's POV, if there really is a big deity out there, one assumes there would be some way of knowing about it. For a deity to create an entire universe but then withhold knowledge of him/her/itself doesn't make much sense (from our limited perspective). If that logic holds, then how is he/she/it to communicate to an entire planet of people? Methinks there would be need for some sort of scripture, rather than relying purely on oral tradition, some objective method for individuals to learn about said deity. That is why all the major religions refer to scriptures of some kind, and also why the FSM does not.

And it is in having the scriptures that we are able to start on some serious dissection and comparison of the claims made by these scriptures. For you to claim that Christianity has no more validity than the other 149 religions, that they are all equally junk, shows a SERIOUS paucity in your academic approach. Even if there were no God, to equate the validity of 150 systems of thought followed by a minimum of 10 million people is unbelievably ostrich-like. Purely on philophical terms, some should rank higher than others. (sigh)

[fuddam]

Unfortunately I do not see how any individual testimony of an internal 2-way relationship with god can be classed as evidence at all.

evidence for himself, not for others.

And to reiterate my earlier point - how is someone 'hearing' the voice of god different from someone 'hearing' voices that tell them to murder someone? You may feel it's different and you may feel it's real, but it's not something that can be accepted as evidence - it's only your belief (even if it's a belief shared by others). As has been said above, belief may be a very powerful thing but just because you believe in something, because you want something to be true, it doesn't mean that it is true. As the t-shirt goes:

lol. agreed about the last point. The difference from hearing the FSM or others is what impact that has on the individual's life. For example, let's say this imaginary voice (from your POV) discussed things with you, debated, laughed, advised etc, and (VERY NB) it had a profound effect on your daily life in the following ways: restored relationships, restored marriages, release from addictions, prophetic revelation, joy in the face of extreme persecution (as opposed to joy simply when things are going well), a growing love for one's fellow human beings, blah blah blah. You get the idea. You might give it some attention, methinks.

On a more serious note if there was a god why would he 'talk' to you anyway? Is your life that important? Are there not people with greater needs on this earth? If so why does god ignore them and talk to you instead? Because they don't believe in him? Sounds rather vain. Because they don't listen to him? If god is talking to everyone and offering good advice why would they ignore it? (And why have I never heard or felt his presence?)

Yes, he is talking to everyone but it is only on acceptance of His love, and submission to it, that He has permission to enter the individual's heart. Beforehand, as you've no doubt heard a zillion times, He's just knocking on the door.

Why do people reject it? The most important reason, I would argue, is that it requires submission, i.e. humility, which is probably the most unnatural act for people. We are by nature selfish. We don't want to take advice (or ask for directions ) but do our own thing. The irony is that the submission to Christ brings more freedom than anyone could believe possible, most particularly from guilt, from the burden of sin. Oh, and however simplistic is sounds, the essential reason for His communication to us is His love for us. Love seems to motivate people to do all sorts of extreme things, and experience all sorts of fantastic emotions - across culture, across history. The difference is His love is bigger than ours, without the negative bits.

[fuddam]

So pretty much your argument here is that he never was a Christian? There must be many people around who call themselves Christian but do not literally speak with god or hear god, I take it they are 'not Christian' as well. Basically your only a Christian if you adhere your denominations narrow definition of a Christian and you have an imaginary friend.

I don't work within denomination, and second, you are totally right. Christianity is about RELATIONSHIP with a living God, not adherence to rules and regulations. Anyone who claims to be Christian but does not have communication with Him is fooling themselves. They are not Christian. They are simply religious (like many footballers about football etc).

You talk about having faith all of the time, are you saying that faith is not a requirement and that in fact you are sure because you have chatted with the big man himself, therefore leaving no room for faith? I thought faith was the basic tenant in any religion i.e you must believe what this book says in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence that there is a mythical man in the sky.

faith is essential, that He will do what He claims, that all He says is true, without having experienced it all firsthand etc, faith that when we are asked to get out the boat, we won't sink, but not faith that the experience of Him is real - that is self-evident.

[quote]
I think he said quite clearly that he read a lot of the bible and only realised that god is depicted as a homicidal maniac once he stater to look at it from a more objective point of view i.e 'is this the word of god' rather than 'this is the word of god and beyond fallible'. Let me put this another way, I am an ordinary bloke and I have never done anything I would consider evil (you may disagree on that), you believe that I will burn in hell because I reject the notion of a god don't you? Well, if I were to assume that there was a god and he gave me the free will not to believe in him why then would he punish me for using that free will? Sounds pretty cruel and sadistic to me.

that is one way to look at it. At the same time, it is not the only way to look at it, and in exploring the details in more depth, it would become quite clear that such a position is flawed. No criticism, but it takes certain ideas from the Bible but neglects others. The Bible has to be taken as a whole, for only then does it make sense. Right from Genesis it becomes clear why God made the world, what man's place is in it, how we relate to Him and to each other etc. The rest of the Bible is simply about trying to get man back into perfect relationship to Him, God chasing after humankind.
If we reject that, if we do not want a relationship with Him (which brings ultimate fulfillment, peace, joy etc) then that decision is taken seriously. Hell is to be in a place without Him. It is a matter of choice. Whether there is literal fire or simply a black void or some other intepretation is open to debate, but if God is goodness, to be separate from Him is to be in a place devoid of goodness. Devoid of peace, of love, of joy - those are attributes of God. If He were cruel or sadistic, He would be like other (fictional gods) who remain aloof in an ivory tower, without any concern for His creation. Instead, we have a God who chases His creation right from the word go, and ultimately submits Himself to His own creation such is His love, in order to redeem His creation free of charge. Doesn't sound very sadistic to me. He offers His love free, His forgiveness free, but He does not force anyone to accept it.

{quote]Interesting you should say that all those many thousands of other religions are not as valid, are you saying that some ideas are less valid than others? (a sentiment I agree with as stated earlier) I think the idea of a virgin birth is patently absurd, therefore its less valid than the idea that Mary was playing away and far from the innocent virginal chosen one the bible makes out, wouldn't you agree?

agreed, some ideas sound absurd, but again that is to take bits from the Bible. Where would one draw the line? Reject virgin birth but accept parting of Red Sea? Or reject that too but accept the staff into snakes bit? Or reject that too and reject God created mankind? One can debate whether something is literal or figurative but to take anything 'supernatural' as metaphor is to basically throw out the starting premise - that there is a God and He created all of it. If Christ's resurrection is not literal, then the whole structure falls apart.

For a Christian, the whole thing starts with relationship with Him, and the reality of that for the individual. Again, if there is no relationship with Him (two-way) then one can't claim to be a Christian. From that point, the rest of the Bible starts to take shape, take on clarity. Once one accepts the first premise (that God created the earth etc) then it is not a big deal for Him to make a virgin pregnant. And why not?

Well, I really feel like injecting some comedy here but I will keep this conversation civil by simply saying that yes that little scripture argument bored me because I see no value in any of it and I certainly do not agree with your assertion that it is useful historical documentation.

the historical documentation bit is extremely useful, from my POV, since it provides useful information historically.

a very basic example: that Gallo was a proconsul. This was rejected by many historians for years, as fantasy and just another example of biblical fallacy. Then an artefact was uncovered that supported this scripture.

or King Tirhakah as mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9 and Isaiah 37:9 - myth or legend? Most historians again relegated it to myth, until the last century when a statue was unearthed of him. I can go on and on about secular corroboration for events depicted in the Bible, as you can guess. Thus it is extremely important that any scripture is supported by history, is internally consistent but also externally consistent. So if (eg) the Quran is not supported by history, that would be an important indication as to its validity.

[G4Z]

Well, I am at work again so I don't want to spend too long on this post therefore I will just pick up on a few of the things you have said.

Firstly

Why do people reject it? The most important reason, I would argue, is that it requires submission, i.e. humility, which is probably the most unnatural act for people. We are by nature selfish.

No, your wrong here. I reject all of it as I have told you and I reject it because it makes no sense, is beyond reason, its implausible, illogical and totally without evidence.

I don't work within denomination, and second, you are totally right. Christianity is about RELATIONSHIP with a living God, not adherence to rules and regulations. Anyone who claims to be Christian but does not have communication with Him is fooling themselves. They are not Christian. They are simply religious (like many footballers about football etc).

I really am not sure where to start with this one.. So if you believe it all, the whole talking snakes bit, virgin birth, fire and brimstone ending, your just religious and not a real Christian like you?

I think we covered this sometime back and if I recall correctly I got you to concede that the voice in your head could in fact be a figment of your imagination. When we consider how many well known Christians (Mother Theresa would be a great example here) battled with the fact that they never got a sign from god and never heard him in their heads it makes your claim sound simply like a mental health issue.

faith is essential, that He will do what He claims, that all He says is true, without having experienced it all firsthand etc, faith that when we are asked to get out the boat, we won't sink, but not faith that the experience of Him is real - that is self-evident.

Well I might come back to this later with some quotes from some prominent Christians who disagree with you. You seem to assume that these other people (like the guy in the video I linked) simply didn't open their minds or hearts or some other vague metaphor for 'abandon all reason' enough to hear him. Maybe those people really did open up and listen and really, in fact all they got was a deafening silence. Maybe your on your own here hearing things in your head, did you ever wonder 'what if I am wrong, what if I am nuts?'

agreed, some ideas sound absurd, but again that is to take bits from the Bible. Where would one draw the line? Reject virgin birth but accept parting of Red Sea? Or reject that too but accept the staff into snakes bit? Or reject that too and reject God created mankind? One can debate whether something is literal or figurative but to take anything 'supernatural' as metaphor is to basically throw out the starting premise - that there is a God and He created all of it. If Christ's resurrection is not literal, then the whole structure falls apart.

Well, clearly I reject all of it because there is a simpler explanation for it than 'it was a miracle'. I.e the writer was lying. Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the historical documentation bit is extremely useful, from my POV, since it provides useful information historically.

a very basic example: that Gallo was a proconsul. This was rejected by many historians for years, as fantasy and just another example of biblical fallacy. Then an artefact was uncovered that supported this scripture.

or King Tirhakah as mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9 and Isaiah 37:9 - myth or legend? Most historians again relegated it to myth, until the last century when a statue was unearthed of him. I can go on and on about secular corroboration for events depicted in the Bible, as you can guess. Thus it is extremely important that any scripture is supported by history, is internally consistent but also externally consistent. So if (eg) the Quran is not supported by history, that would be an important indication as to its validity.

Il reiterate a point made by a previous poster here. Just because the new series of 24 might show Gordon Brown as prime minister of the UK in it does not mean that the events depicted in the show are real or even plausible.

[TeePee]

They may agree on fundamentals, but christianity is still least internally coherent religion I can think of. Even Hinduism, with it's thousands of gods, is still more coherent. Followers of different gods within hinduism don't dispute the beliefs of others.

Why don't you ever do the research? You've been given the links before and ignore them.

If volume of scripture relates to the quality of a religion, then scientology easily beats christianity. The reality is any religion which relies on faith is equally invalid, no matter how vehemently - or verbosely - you try to defend it.

[pollaxe]

Fuddam, there are numerous historical problems with scripture and the bible. For example, the activities of King David at Jerusalem are virtually unsupported by extant archaeology. Unfortunately (and perhaps inevitably) the studies become caught up in religious and political factors, hence a dig funded by Israelis and American Jewish organisations 'found' King David's palace in 2005. Bones dug up at Masada were buried by the Israelis and given a national funeral even though it's far more likely they are the remains of Roman soldiers from the besieging 10th legion. It's a process that is ongoing, the bones of the 'Princes in the Tower' in Westminster (supposedly murdered by Richard III) are very, very dodgy and the Abbey refuses all requests at proper scientific analysis. History can be made to fit things.

I was once visited by some Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the things they said to me was that people told them that the bible contradicted itself but that they believed that in fact it didn't. I replied that unfortunately it does and I could provide the evidence. Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon drew directly on contradictions between Deuteronomy and Leviticus - one said you should marry your brother's widow, the other said doing so was 'unclean.' Sounds like a contradiction to me. They didn't have any answers for me and left and they've not been back since.

The whole virgin birth thing is also problematic. Do you, for example, believe Christ was born to virgin in a stable on December 25th? If so you should look into the worship of Mithras, who was born to a virgin, in a cave on the same date. The early Church, in attempts to counter the widespread effect of Mithraism dressed up Christ in a lot of his clothing to make him more acceptable to pagans. Pagans were often happy to accept one god or goddess was just an aspect of another (look at the Romans at Bath.) The point is, where do you think the word of the bible became fixed? As Dawkins pointed out in his excellent series on atheism the Church has scripture and tradition and the latter tends not to be based on the former at all. Look at the virtual worship of Mary by the Catholic Church and all of the things associated with her. There's chuff all in the bible about her yet all these details about her are accepted and widespread. She was a vital figure to the Templars (forget the nonsense in the Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail etc.) but much of her worship and promotion has been to do with replacing goddess figures (like Cybele) of pagan populations.

As the others have said, just because a figure appears in the bible and is historically real it does not mean it's a reliable source per se. I could write something about Mick Hucknall and an encounter with an angel, it doesn't mean it happened. There are excellent theories tracing ancient Egypt's religious influences on ancient Judaism. There are also good theories (one supported by Islamic sources, I might add) that Christ was in fact a Buddhist teacher, survived the crucifixion (the biblical sources agree Christ's time on the cross was unusually short) and died an old man in Kashmir (where there were Jewish settlers) do a search on Issa/Yuz Asaf.

If you try to justify the bible or a religion through historiography alone - or in a greater part - then you are on very shaky ground, I'm afraid (and this is something I feel qualified to talk about, as an historian.) The documentary evidence for the existence of Christ is very, very weak. Josephus' mention of him is now agreed by all serious scholars to have been a later addition and good biblical scholars will also tell you the early gospels were morphic in nature and subject to a deal of additions/rewrites.

[LWA]

Let me put this another way, I am an ordinary bloke and I have never done anything I would consider evil (you may disagree on that), you believe that I will burn in hell because I reject the notion of a god don't you? Well, if I were to assume that there was a god and he gave me the free will not to believe in him why then would he punish me for using that free will?

Fuddam, could I ask for you to comment on this please? (All other input will be gratefully recieved). As a non Christian, I am interested as to what you believe God will make of me. Like G4Z, I've tried to lead a good life, respect my fellow humans and help others if possible.

Do you believe he will hate me because I do not spend my life worshiping him? Or do you think that even if I lead a good life (minus religion) he wont accept me? Is it the case that the only way into Heaven (if you believe in this) is via a life of religious beliefs?

The reasons for asking are because I am curious to other peoples beliefs.

Thanks in advance.

[Bazzlad]

Fuddam, could I ask for you to comment on this please? (All other input will be gratefully recieved). As a non Christian, I am interested as to what you believe God will make of me. Like G4Z, I've tried to lead a good life, respect my fellow humans and help others if possible.

Do you believe he will hate me because I do not spend my life worshiping him? Or do you think that even if I lead a good life (minus religion) he wont accept me? Is it the case that the only way into Heaven (if you believe in this) is via a life of religious beliefs?

The reasons for asking are because I am curious to other peoples beliefs.

Thanks in advance.

Heaven and Hell is overplayed, hell isn't fire and brimstone, hell is an eternity without seeing the light, Heaven a place worshiping God and only God, hence the line in marriage - till death us do part, once you die and accept God, all your love if for Him and only Him, no longer for your partner.

In theory.

[TheAnimus]

without wishing to drag this thread down the pan (its been quite good so far)

Hell isn't fire and brimstone, nor is it eternity without seeing the light... its:
hell - Google Maps

[Bazzlad]

Hell is in Norway?

[LWA]

Heaven and Hell is overplayed, hell isn't fire and brimstone, hell is an eternity without seeing the light, Heaven a place worshiping God and only God, hence the line in marriage - till death us do part, once you die and accept God, all your love if for Him and only Him, no longer for your partner.

In theory.

Thanks for the answer but it didn't really answer my question. Maybe I should re-phrase:

From a Christian's perspective, if I (a non-Christian) should ever meet the big guy upstairs, how do you think he will react to me?

Will he be annoyed because I have not spent my life worshipping him?
Or will he simply be okay with me because he is the almighty and therefore forgiving?

(Please note, I am not mocking anyone here, merely asking a question)

[IBM]

I'd always thought that religion is for the masses.

All those things that you should or shouldn't do. Do it or be smited, don't do it and be smited. Those are for the stupid people. Most of religion is social conditioning. I'd have to say that a God that sends people to burn in hell for not following one particular brand of religion would be pretty ridiculous, but a God that is concerned that some idiot's going to go out and form a canabalistic, dog shagging, goat worshiping sect and so encourages the belief that unless you worship him, then you're going to burn....well, that makes more sense to me.

I was talking to a muslim scholar the other day (as you do) who'd just returned from Egypt about Islam and alcohol and gambling. His personal theory was that while alcohol and gambling isn't bad per se, there's always going to be one person in a hundred, or a thousand, for whom it's going to be life destroying. So instead of leaving it to the discression of the individual (people being self indulgent idiots most of the time) Islam bans it for everyone.

I asked him if he'd try alcohol since he seems like the kind of person unlikely to have his life ruined by booze, and he said he used to when he was younger and could take it or leave it. So I asked if he still did, to which he replied no, because he was afraid of being smited.

[pollaxe]

I believe this is why Islam is supposed to have been rejected as a national religion by Russia - because alcohol is proscribed. I also believe it's one of those things that's open to interpretation in the Quran. Again, one of the big problems with religion that thorny word - interpretation. I've known a few muslims and some did drink, others didn't (like your friend above, at least one said he was erring on the side of caution!)

As for the going to hell if you don't believe card, well that's one played by a fair few religious types. I've had this argument with a number of them and when I said "So Ghandi is burning in hell?" they've either dodged the question or said yes because he had access to the Truth and didn't take it. What about all those people born before the bible was widely available? Before it was rendered into the vernacular and thus understandable to the common man? People from every other faith will be burning too? Clearly, it's cobblers.

A good friend of the family became a priest and he used to quote something from the bible that all lost sheep will be gathered into the fold by the end of things. He was quite sure that all went to God in the end, just that his lot probably had the more direct route. I believe St Jerome taught something similar that if a man has a much loved coat that needs patching then he doesn't throw it away.

I try to live my life in a moral and pleasant way and treat others as I'd wish to be treated myself. I try though I often fail (especially when driving). I think all the great faiths have a similar tenet but I don't think you need a faith or a religion for that. I was reading Bernard Cornwell's Swordsong recently and the central character (who's a pagan) says he'd rather burn for all eternity than share paradise with the judgemental, holier-than-thou types who're telling him he's destined for hell fire. Quite.

edit:

So instead of leaving it to the discression of the individual (people being self indulgent idiots most of the time) Islam bans it for everyone.

Blimey, Islam = New Labour, I never knew!

[ajbrun]

I'd also like to put forward a question.

I believe fuddam said that to be christian, you have to talk to God in some way. You have to communicate with him. If this is true, then how come so many christians interpret the bible in different ways? Is the way that fuddam interprets it the only correct way (because he speaks to god), or is god either not talking about that subject for some reason, or telling different people different stories?

[yamangman]

Or indeed, why is his God an typically Christian God?

I'd also like to put forward a question.

I believe fuddam said that to be christian, you have to talk to God in some way. You have to communicate with him. If this is true, then how come so many christians interpret the bible in different ways? Is the way that fuddam interprets it the only correct way (because he speaks to god), or is god either not talking about that subject for some reason, or telling different people different stories?