Christianity is Ridiculous

[liamconnor]

I have read too many times that all an atheist needs is one reasonable, natural explanation for the origins of Christianity. Now, in one sense, I agree; where I stop is that no reasonable explanation has been given. Most so-called explanations dwell in the land of the abstract and ignore particulars. For a counter example, see Alex who has put together a very detailed Swoon Theory.

However, let's accept the criterion AND accept that an atheist need say nothing more than that "Rumors happen; therefore it is more likely that it all started with a rumor; whether it did or didn't doesn't matter. Therefore, the resurrection didn't happen."

But if that is what all atheists think, then why are you here? If it so obvious that Christianity can be obliterated by four clauses, why constantly argue with people who must be delusional? Why read a single sentence by us?

[Zzyzx]

.

But if that is what all atheists think, then why are you here? If it so obvious that Christianity can be obliterated by four clauses, why constantly argue with people who must be delusional? Why read a single sentence by us?

Various religious beliefs / illusions / delusions / etc have influenced or dominated societies for many centuries -- often reflected in societal laws that are applied to all citizens.

Unless theocracy or theocratic tendencies are held in check by strong opposition they may run amok (as currently in some Middle Eastern nations -- and previously in various western nations). In the US currently, Christianity has undue influence upon the political system -- and the goal of separation of church and state has not been achieved or maintained.

Those of us who are opposed to having laws and practices influenced or determined by ANY religion can effectively present our ideas in this format where they can be considered by thousands of readers. Several Forum threads here have at or near 150,000 views.

Countering religious propaganda is motivation enough for many of us to devote considerable time, energy and effort to these debates. When we help Aplogists demonstrate that they cannot provide verifiable evidence that their claims, stories, opinions, conjectures, ponderings are true and accurate, we accomplish that objective.

In the absence of solid, verifiable evidence, Theistic claims / stories / etc MUST depend upon 'Take my word for it (or his or this book)'. Critical thinking discourages depending upon taking someone's word as a basis for making important decisions.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

In the absence of solid, verifiable evidence,

Well, a good many of us are waiting for an example from you of "solid, verifiable evidence" that testifies to something from the time period of Jesus.

But that is not pertinent to this thread.

Your response is adequate I think: Yes, Christianity is ridiculous, but it is still popular and destructive and therefore needs to be destroyed...

is that right?

[Zzyzx]

.

In the absence of solid, verifiable evidence,

Well, a good many of us are waiting for an example from you of "solid, verifiable evidence" that testifies to something from the time period of Jesus.

Are there actually 'a good many waiting'? How can that be verified?

WHY would I be expected to present examples of 'solid, verifiable evidence' to substantiate claims and stories from 2000 years ago when I do NOT maintain that ANY claims and stories of that era can be substantiated with 'solid, verifiable evidence'?

If claims and stories of that era CANNOT be substantiated, WHY maintain that ANY of them are true and accurate?

Your response is adequate I think: Yes, Christianity is ridiculous, but it is still popular and destructive and therefore needs to be destroyed...

is that right?

Of course not.

I have NEVER maintained that Christianity 'needs to be destroyed'. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that Christianity and other religions are NEEDED by many people who depend upon them to provide morals and rules imposed and enforced supernaturally (even if imaginary).

If someone was wise enough to ASK my position rather than making silly assumptions, they might learn that my position is that religions (including Christianity) have a MINOR place in society and should be available for those who need the 'hope' and/or need reassurance that they can have a 'better life after they die', or 'see Grandma again' (or whatever they need from religion).

A small percentage of the population going to church (even less than the 20% who attendance statistics indicate actually attend), with religion as a minor to insignificant factor in the governance of society -- would not be objectionable to me (and might be beneficial to society).

Many of us, however, do not require supernatural influence (real or imaginary) to shape our decisions and actions. AND we do not wish to have our lives influenced in any way by the religious beliefs of others. Christians should (but seldom seem to) understand objection to having religious beliefs of others inflicted if they think about having Islamic beliefs inflicted upon them and their society.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

WHY would I be expected to present examples of 'solid, verifiable evidence' to substantiate claims and stories from 2000 years ago when I do NOT maintain that ANY claims and stories of that era can be substantiated with 'solid, verifiable evidence'?

This is huge Z. I wish we had gotten to this point a long time ago.

Let it be known Members, that Z is not convinced that anything of the remote past has actually occurred. He is not convinced that Alexander the Great was a real figure; or Julius Caesar; or Hannibal; or Nero; or that there was a Socrates, a Plato, an Aristotle, a Livy, a Herodotus, a Plutarch, a Virgil, a Homer, a Cicero, an Octavian, a Augustine.

[Divine Insight]

But if that is what all atheists think, then why are you here? If it so obvious that Christianity can be obliterated by four clauses, why constantly argue with people who must be delusional? Why read a single sentence by us?

I speak out against all the Abrahamic religions because I feel they breed ignorance and are quite dangerous in many ways. Religion is often used as a political tool to support highly bigoted and ignorant positions.

Religion is often used to hate on gays and transgender individuals.

Religion is often used to belittle known science and argue against evolution and the truth of the scientific method.

Some people even go as far as using this religion to argue against the age of the universe and all known cosmology, etc.

Religion is also used for other social bigotries, not the least of which is religious bigotry itself. Religious people have often claimed that atheists are immoral people simply because they don't believe in this invisible God that no one can produce any evidence for.

The danger of radical Islam should be obvious. I'm also convinced that the problems in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians is ultimately religious based. In fact, they are even planning on rebuilding a religious temple in Jerusalem which is supposed to bring about the battle of Armageddon and the end prophesied end time. In short, these religious myths can actually play out their own superstitious prophesies, all the while claiming that what they are doing has been "foretold".

Well, of course it's been foretold since they are purposefully trying to make these prophesies come true. How silly is that.

These religions are dangerous to humanity in general. This is why I speak out against them and point out their extreme contradictions and utter absurdities and immoralities.

What I would like to know is why religious people are so "hell bent" on proselytizing these religions and keeping them going? What's the point to that?

What upsets me is that I feel that intelligent people should be able to see through these religions. You have been giving countless reasons why these religions are clearly false, yet here you are day after day continually posting support for this religion.

Why? Not only that, but if you have to work so hard to sell this religion doesn't that automatically mean that Jesus clearly failed to convince people?

If Jesus and Yahweh failed to convince people they are real, then why in the world would you think that you could succeed at something that both Jesus and Yahweh failed at?

Evangelism and Christian apologetics don't even make any sense. If God and Jesus were any good they should have been able to convince people themselves.

The FACT that this religion is necessarily false is proven by the religion itself. There's just no getting around it.

Besides, the whole point to the religion is that if someone doesn't believe in the religion it can only be because they refuse to acknowledge God and they are an evil person who has clearly chosen evil over good.

Atheists who know that this is a lie know for certain that the religion is false.

I am not an evil person who lusts for evil and hates all that is good. Therefore Christianity cannot possibly be true because I don't believe it. And supposedly it wouldn't be possible for me to not believe it if I'm actually a good decent person which I am.

So the religion is necessarily false. There's just no getting around it.

So why contribute to something we KNOW is false?

Something that rejects intelligence, scientific facts, and even brotherly love which these religions preach but NEVER exhibit!

Preaching Christianity in the name of LOVE is the greatest atrocity that love has ever known.

[Zzyzx]

.

WHY would I be expected to present examples of 'solid, verifiable evidence' to substantiate claims and stories from 2000 years ago when I do NOT maintain that ANY claims and stories of that era can be substantiated with 'solid, verifiable evidence'?

This is huge Z.

It is a huge mistake to deliberately distort another person's position.

Let it be known Members, that Z is not convinced that anything of the remote past has actually occurred. He is not convinced that Alexander the Great was a real figure; or Julius Caesar; or Hannibal; or Nero; or that there was a Socrates, a Plato, an Aristotle, a Livy, a Herodotus, a Plutarch, a Virgil, a Homer, a Cicero, an Octavian, a Augustine.

I trust that readers are more astute than to accept that deliberate distortion of what I actually said.

The statement, "I do NOT maintain that ANY claims and stories of that era can be substantiated with 'solid, verifiable evidence'" certainly does NOT say who I consider a 'real figure'.

Is it too difficult to debate against what I actually say? Is it necessary to fabricate a straw-man to flail against because you CANNOT debate against my actual position? Is that what Apologetics requires (for lack of 'solid, verifiable evidence' to support its claims and stories that ARE presented as truthful and accurate)?

Notice that Christians present Bible tales as though they are true -- BUT cannot show 'solid, verifiable evidence' to support those EMPTY (unsupported) claims. All the fancy footwork does not conceal that situation.

[marco]

But if that is what all atheists think, then why are you here? If it so obvious that Christianity can be obliterated by four clauses, why constantly argue with people who must be delusional? Why read a single sentence by us?

The scenario is your own, Liam. There are clever Christians and foolish atheists. As a 16-year-old I went to have discussions with a Jesuit, who impressed me with his oracular skill and the depth of the resources he was able to muster to counter my weaknesses. But I wanted to learn. And I wanted to match him.

Some people on either side of the religious Red Sea here say clever things. We may learn more from those who oppose us than from those who think as we do. And if we still think God is an imposter we can learn some Church history to get us through our dark, godless days.

[benchwarmer]

More unsubstantiated strawmen and a failure to understand what website one is on.

I have read too many times that all an atheist needs is one reasonable, natural explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Please direct us to one such example of an atheist on this site NEEDING an explanation of any kind for the origins of Christianity (or any other religion).

The simple fact that many explanations are provided does not determine need. They are likely provided to point out alternatives to invisible beings with what seem to be very odd planning.

Now, in one sense, I agree; where I stop is that no reasonable explanation has been given. Most so-called explanations dwell in the land of the abstract and ignore particulars. For a counter example, see Alex who has put together a very detailed Swoon Theory.

However, let's accept the criterion AND accept that an atheist need say nothing more than that "Rumors happen; therefore it is more likely that it all started with a rumor; whether it did or didn't doesn't matter. Therefore, the resurrection didn't happen."

Please point us to an atheist on this site who claims the resurrection didn't happen. The rest of us will happily pile on and ask for evidence from said 'atheist'.

But if that is what all atheists think, then why are you here? If it so obvious that Christianity can be obliterated by four clauses, why constantly argue with people who must be delusional? Why read a single sentence by us?

I direct our apparently confused thread starter to the very tippy top of the web page that is currently under view. What is the very first word in the name of this site? I hope that clears it up for you.

[Bust Nak]

But if that is what all atheists think, then why are you here? If it so obvious that Christianity can be obliterated by four clauses, why constantly argue with people who must be delusional? Why read a single sentence by us?

What made you think the answers would have changed since the last time you asked us why?