Three Biggest Objections To The Christian God.

[brewerb]

Not to derail but I've yet to find someone who can argue/debate a god into existence.

However, I'll allow them belief in their mental construct if it helps them make it thru life.

Yes, indeed. I said, "rational belief system." Not "reality."

No offense, I was responding to "plenty of well-reasoned arguments for the existence of god". Most of the believers I interact with state and god(s) and all the trappings that come with it (heaven, hell, angle's, resurrection,.....) actually exist. I guess I'd see their arguments as more rationalization than rational or reason. Those seem tied to logic.

Maybe I'm simply picking nits. Don't need to dwell on this.

[pattylt]

Do you really object to someone’s beliefs that cause you no harm even if you think it’s ridiculous?  I object to Christianity because of Christian behavior and their obsession with conversion, including forcing it upon society.

Many other religions are pretty harmless.  Native American shamanic beliefs cause me no grief as well as most sects of Buddhism or Jainism.  I don’t consider their beliefs true but, they also don’t knock on my door or shove it down my throat.  Christianity could take a valuable lesson from them.

Flat Earth, telekinesis, moon hoax, remote viewing.

All those beliefs are essentially harmless. But if any proponent of those beliefs were to post here they will be questioned robustly. Why should religious beliefs get a buy?

Of course if they post here they should be challenged.  This is an atheist forum and we should defend against their errors.  I was speaking in general about a conversation outside of here where we tend be a bit more polite.  They come to our house then it’s our rules and our turf…the only reason non atheists come here seems to be to challenge us or condemn us…and that’s NOT polite.

[Dānu]

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

[Cavebear]

Yes, indeed. I said, "rational belief system." Not "reality."

No offense, I was responding to "plenty of well-reasoned arguments for the existence of god". Most of the believers I interact with state and god(s) and all the trappings that come with it (heaven, hell, angle's, resurrection,.....) actually exist. I guess I'd see their arguments as more rationalization than rational or reason. Those seem tied to logic.

Maybe I'm simply picking nits. Don't need to dwell on this.

Nit-picking details is one of the ways science and knowledge advances. Granted, there are "Eureka" moments, but it is usually one little toothbrush on a fossil or one "now wait, what about this?" moment. The grand discoveries and conceptions are wonderfully great. But more comes from examining the nits.

And I declare myself to be an under-appreciated nit-picker... LOL!

[Aliza]

Flat Earth, telekinesis, moon hoax, remote viewing.

All those beliefs are essentially harmless. But if any proponent of those beliefs were to post here they will be questioned robustly. Why should religious beliefs get a buy?

Of course if they post here they should be challenged.  This is an atheist forum and we should defend against their errors.  I was speaking in general about a conversation outside of here where we tend be a bit more polite.  They come to our house then it’s our rules and our turf…the only reason non atheists come here seems to be to challenge us or condemn us…and that’s NOT polite.

Of course! Push back is *why* I post religious content at all. I don't want to talk at people and I'm well aware this is an atheist community. (how could I not be?) I expect to be challenged intellectually.

But there are people here who are so filled with rage that they attack anyone and everyone who is a theist. Sure, there are theist trolls here, but we never really get to a point where we determine if the theist is actually a troll before some members rip their guts open and declare that they were obviously a troll. Shit! I, a forum admin, am attacked and insulted when I talk religion. I've had users refuse to follow my directions for forum-related matters because I'm a theist. Old members have defended my character and STILL there are people who are rude and insulting toward me based on the religious views I hold myself to.

[Rhythmcs]

Never had a religion to leave Aliza. I find that to be one of the most common stereotypes that theists employ when faced with criticism, along with nonsense about being full of rage, ofc.

That antitheism is compared to theistic fundamentalism...as if that were A Bad Thing, is the cherry on top. It explicitly makes the antitheists case when we think it through. In it's currently weakened state, theism demands deference and courtesy from the people it would properly shit on were it still capable of mustering that authority, as it had in the past, and as it continues to do in present whenever it can get away with it. None of this is even remotely surprising, given the character of the gods that people believe in, and the fundamentals of the religions espoused by abrahamics.

I...personally...think we deserve a better quality of religion. I'm an antitheist, not antireligious. I'm not sure that antitheism is doing much to inform my comments from earlier, though. I think it would be absurd to object to christianity on the grounds that it doesn't affirm the real power of chakras, too. Or to object to cakes because muffins. Particularly when there's so much to object to about christianity in mere reality. That jesus didn't turn out to be the hebrew hammer, come down from the davidic kings, to crush the rest of us under the boot and install a global theocratic dynasty is...firstly... a good thing...and, secondly, not a rational objection to the religion of christianity.

Perhaps it would help to make the closest thing I've ever had to a religion the focus? Good ole american exceptionalism. I think I could easily grant that such a belief is not necessarily founded in fact. That it's an accident of my birth, and a product of my upbringing. That it's hobbled by the superstitions and foundational myths of americana. All well and good. How would you interpret my objection to some other country aspiring to greatness, or just to being better, on the basis of american exceptionalism? That, because this country x didn't affirm my american exceptionalism, or failed by the metrics of my american exceptionalism, their ideology was..then..not true, and they could not be great?

[brewerb]

But there are people here who are so filled with rage that they attack anyone and everyone who is a theist.

Given my history living with christians I understand the rage. I've also demonstrated rage here though I try to keep it a minimum. Aliza, you're on of the few jewsish persons I've actually interacted with. Hopefully I haven't raged at you but I know the potential exists. To many years as being treated as an anathema/pariah.

[Charladele]

I will acknowledge that I sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction when people come on and try to convince us their religion is the only truth. Mostly because the religion I grew up with did me psychological harm that I had to live with for a long time. I had no choice in the matter when I was a child, but I guess a lot of theists are in the same boat. Many were taught, by the people they trusted the most, that the information is true. And it's scary to start seriously questioning. I know I thought something bad would happen to me if I turned away from God. Like there would be revenge from him if I took that path. After all, fear is all part of most religions and it's how they keep people FROM questioning.

[1Sam15]

I rage against the theists gang leader, yahweh.

They have to do and say what their gang leader says or it will torture them for ever.

Theist are just stupid gullible robots programmed to do the gang leader will.

[Revenant77x]

I always wondered why the Jewish people did not use the new testament.  This explains it, thanks Aliza. What I do want to point out is that Aliza is not trying to push her religion on the rest of us like some who come here.  In fact, I am amazed at her tact and restraint while moderating this site.  How DID it come about that you are moderating the site?  There must be an interesting story about that.

I appreciate that. Still, the anti-theists are going hate. Fundamentalism can go from one extreme right to another when people leave religion. 

How did I come to moderate AD? Well, I started AD along with Mathilda and Dom. I met a lot of really great people on the old forum, TTA, and I wasn't ready to let the community go when they shut it down. So I did my part to help us continue here. I set the MyBB boards up and tried to make it similar to TTA. A few years ago, Mathilda was no longer able to run the forum, so I took over from there. I appreciated Dom's continued moderation over the years, but I fear she's not coming back at this point. Thankfully, @Mathilda is around more, so that's awesome. @Revenant77x still logs in from time to time to check in on us. *Waves to Rev*

Hey Boo ,  I pop on at least once a day and check if there is anything needs done and if there are any messages in [Redacted].

[Paleophyte]

But there are people here who are so filled with rage that they attack anyone and everyone who is a theist.

And more than a few who will attack any atheist who agrees with a theist on anything, isn't sufficiently unholier-than-thou, or makes any attempt to be more civil than a flaming dog turd. Rabid anti-theists are a profoundly embarrassing species of bigot.

[Cavebear]

Of course if they post here they should be challenged.  This is an atheist forum and we should defend against their errors.  I was speaking in general about a conversation outside of here where we tend be a bit more polite.  They come to our house then it’s our rules and our turf…the only reason non atheists come here seems to be to challenge us or condemn us…and that’s NOT polite.

Of course! Push back is *why* I post religious content at all. I don't want to talk at people and I'm well aware this is an atheist community. (how could I not be?) I expect to be challenged intellectually.

But there are people here who are so filled with rage that they attack anyone and everyone who is a theist. Sure, there are theist trolls here, but we never really get to a point where we determine if the theist is actually a troll before some members rip their guts open and declare that they were obviously a troll. Shit! I, a forum admin, am attacked and insulted when I talk religion. I've had users refuse to follow my directions for forum-related matters because I'm a theist. Old members have defended my character and STILL there are people who are rude and insulting toward me based on the religious views I hold myself to.

I don't hate theists individually. Most (aside from their odd ancient superstitions) are otherwise normal people. What I dislike is the group-think and the theist assumption that all who don't agree (to the absolute last degree) are WRONG AND EVIL and are therefore condemned. And the way they try to make politics a religious-based issue.

In a world drowned in problems that are mostly religion-based, I need a place mostly free of it just for my own sanity. I was an adult before I discovered I wasn't almost the only atheist. I mean, there was Madalyn Murray and Me. Sort of. When I first got internet service, the first search I did was "atheist". So, in some ways, my life revolves around an atheist viewpoint.

And so, I am here to discuss life and world issues from an atheist POV with other atheists. Not theists. I get that everywhere and I sure don't have to search for it. If this forum was titled "Atheist/Theist Debate Forum", I wouldn't be here.

I consider all theists here to be "intruders", and I have never hidden that. All I want is "one safe place" for "just atheists" to talk to each other about everything.

If I had the computer skills to manage a forum, I would establish one. Any theist "intruder" would be immediately banned from it. But, alas, I do not.

[Aliza]

And so, I am here to discuss life and world issues from an atheist POV with other atheists. Not theists.  I get that everywhere and I sure don't have to search for it.  If this forum was titled "Atheist/Theist Debate Forum", I wouldn't be here.  

I consider all theists here to be "intruders", and I have never hidden that.  All I want is "one safe place" for "just atheists" to talk to each other about everything.

If I had the computer skills to manage a forum, I would establish one.  Any theist "intruder" would be immediately banned from it.  But, alas, I do not.

So from your POV, am I an intruder on this forum?

Would I be welcome on your forum, if you were to have one?

[airportkid]

And well done to THAT guy. We all want world peace.

The notion that a single discrete human personality could be the only one who would transform the entire planet is an ever more preposterous concept.

The first problem is it elevates personality to the level of most salient factor, not the ideas espoused.  But it's the ideas that endure across lifetimes; personalities expire.

The second problem is following personality is by definition a cult.  Is becoming a cult what we want humankind to become as the ideal?  Our historic experience with cults is mostly disastrous.  Even such greats as Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi never permanently transformed humanity, or even just a portion of it.  Cults are what the first problem is:  making personality what matters most.

The third problem is the scale of humanity and its cultures, which are expanding.  The world is at 8 billion people in hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural milieus.  Such growth makes transformation of the whole less achievable.

The fourth problem is that even ideas become obsolete.  Humanity is never static; as it changes new problems emerge that weren't problems, or even foreseeable, until changes became enacted.  So would we finally free ourselves of blind adherence to personality and embrace ideas instead, we still have to develop the maturity of mind to recognize when ideas themselves must be supplanted.  And accomplish this across a vast diversity of cultures with contradictory priorities.

Not a job for one guy.

[Rhythmcs]

More frame baiting bullshit, Aliza.

Does judaism need you to do that, or is it elective?

[Cavebear]

And so, I am here to discuss life and world issues from an atheist POV with other atheists. Not theists.  I get that everywhere and I sure don't have to search for it.  If this forum was titled "Atheist/Theist Debate Forum", I wouldn't be here.  

I consider all theists here to be "intruders", and I have never hidden that.  All I want is "one safe place" for "just atheists" to talk to each other about everything.

If I had the computer skills to manage a forum, I would establish one.  Any theist "intruder" would be immediately banned from it.  But, alas, I do not.

So from your POV, am I an intruder on this forum?

Would I be welcome on your forum, if you were to have one?

Well, you put me in an awkward position. I could slip around that saying "its not my forum", but, to be technical, yeah. And there are degrees of "intruderness". If I kept a list, you would be close to the top of "OK". If I had a forum myself, you probably wouldn't be there. But that's because it would be "my forum and my rules".

Hey, at least I'm honest... Damn, where's my flak jacket...

[Cavebear]

And well done to THAT guy. We all want world peace.

The notion that a single discrete human personality could be the only one who would transform the entire planet is an ever more preposterous concept.

The first problem is it elevates personality to the level of most salient factor, not the ideas espoused.  But it's the ideas that endure across lifetimes; personalities expire.

The second problem is following personality is by definition a cult.  Is becoming a cult what we want humankind to become as the ideal?  Our historic experience with cults is mostly disastrous.  Even such greats as Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi never permanently transformed humanity, or even just a portion of it.  Cults are what the first problem is:  making personality what matters most.

The third problem is the scale of humanity and its cultures, which are expanding.  The world is at 8 billion people in hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural milieus.  Such growth makes transformation of the whole less achievable.

The fourth problem is that even ideas become obsolete.  Humanity is never static; as it changes new problems emerge that weren't problems, or even foreseeable, until changes became enacted.  So would we finally free ourselves of blind adherence to personality and embrace ideas instead, we still have to develop the maturity of mind to recognize when ideas themselves must be supplanted.  And accomplish this across a vast diversity of cultures with contradictory priorities.

Not a job for one guy.

So, followers of Jesus or Mohammed (or Buddha, et al) are cults? I agree.

I liked "Humanity is never static". We change. Originally, some kind of herbivores in trees to some biped herbivores to meat-scavengers to hunters to farmers to techs.

About our numbers... The more of us, the harder change becomes. The first person to put an arrow to a bow, or who deliberately planted a seed, changed everything. It is a lot harder to change "everyone" now.

[Aliza]

And well done to THAT guy. We all want world peace.

The notion that a single discrete human personality could be the only one who would transform the entire planet is an ever more preposterous concept.

The first problem is it elevates personality to the level of most salient factor, not the ideas espoused.  But it's the ideas that endure across lifetimes; personalities expire.

The second problem is following personality is by definition a cult.  Is becoming a cult what we want humankind to become as the ideal?  Our historic experience with cults is mostly disastrous.  Even such greats as Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi never permanently transformed humanity, or even just a portion of it.  Cults are what the first problem is:  making personality what matters most.

The third problem is the scale of humanity and its cultures, which are expanding.  The world is at 8 billion people in hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural milieus.  Such growth makes transformation of the whole less achievable.

The fourth problem is that even ideas become obsolete.  Humanity is never static; as it changes new problems emerge that weren't problems, or even foreseeable, until changes became enacted.  So would we finally free ourselves of blind adherence to personality and embrace ideas instead, we still have to develop the maturity of mind to recognize when ideas themselves must be supplanted.  And accomplish this across a vast diversity of cultures with contradictory priorities.

Not a job for one guy.

Okay, just so we're clear, we're not in disagreement over the likelihood of this event occurring. You're saying it's preposterous for this to happen, and you provided reasons as to why. I'm saying, "Yeah, it's really unlikely, and it hasn't happened yet." 

We're also both in agreement (or at least I think we are) that the Jewish concept of Messiah is not a super natural. I informed you of this, and you seemed to present objections that were based in reality. 

Where we seem to be diverging is that I'm also saying that if someone accomplished world peace, I'd give credit where credit is due regardless of which culture produced this individual. I'd admit to being impressed and grateful for the world peace.

[airportkid]

I'd admit to being impressed and grateful for the world peace.

Me too.  But we shouldn't hold our breath.

[Cavebear]

The notion that a single discrete human personality could be the only one who would transform the entire planet is an ever more preposterous concept.

The first problem is it elevates personality to the level of most salient factor, not the ideas espoused.  But it's the ideas that endure across lifetimes; personalities expire.

The second problem is following personality is by definition a cult.  Is becoming a cult what we want humankind to become as the ideal?  Our historic experience with cults is mostly disastrous.  Even such greats as Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi never permanently transformed humanity, or even just a portion of it.  Cults are what the first problem is:  making personality what matters most.

The third problem is the scale of humanity and its cultures, which are expanding.  The world is at 8 billion people in hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural milieus.  Such growth makes transformation of the whole less achievable.

The fourth problem is that even ideas become obsolete.  Humanity is never static; as it changes new problems emerge that weren't problems, or even foreseeable, until changes became enacted.  So would we finally free ourselves of blind adherence to personality and embrace ideas instead, we still have to develop the maturity of mind to recognize when ideas themselves must be supplanted.  And accomplish this across a vast diversity of cultures with contradictory priorities.

Not a job for one guy.

Okay, just so we're clear, we're not in disagreement over the likelihood of this event occurring. You're saying it's preposterous for this to happen, and you provided reasons as to why. I'm saying, "Yeah, it's really unlikely, and it hasn't happened yet." 

We're also both in agreement (or at least I think we are) that the Jewish concept of Messiah is not a super natural. I informed you of this, and you seemed to present objections that were based in reality. 

Where we seem to be diverging is that I'm also saying that if someone accomplished world peace, I'd give credit where credit is due regardless of which culture produced this individual. I'd admit to being impressed and grateful for the world peace.

What if "world peace" was totally authoritarian?

[atheist_walks_in]

Where we seem to be diverging is that I'm also saying that if someone accomplished world peace, I'd give credit where credit is due regardless of which culture produced this individual. I'd admit to being impressed and grateful for the world peace.

What if "world peace" was totally authoritarian?

You put your finger right on it -- I have trouble imagining how this would be accomplished any other way, especially by a single individual. And even if they could do it wisely, would it continue that way? The amount of power required to accomplish that would seem to be inevitably corrupting, especially once the individual died and passed on his or her power. 

Whatever his faults, I think Jesus Christ would be horrified by the things that are now done in his name. And that didn't take thousands of years to go bad. It started not long after he died and within a few hundred years people were being executed for disagreeing about the nature of the Trinity. Perhaps you can argue that, since he was not a "messiah" in the true sense of the word, it was inevitable that his work would fail. But it is hard to find many examples of single individuals who made lasting change. And the most common examples (MLK, for instance) never even achieved the goals they set for themselves in their own lifetimes, never mind what happened afterwards.

And this actually goes to the heart of my objection to the Xian god. He uses his power just like any human would. He's wildly inconsistent, being kind one moment and torturing or killing with abandon the next, demanding irrational  demonstrations of loyalty and raging when he doesn't get his way. He's a father who sends his son to be tortured to death (something he is so proud of, it becomes the primary symbol of his faith). Or he's a so-called Messiah who can't get his own message straight and thinks the failure of his mission is something to build a Mass around. Or he's some kind of weird spiritual being that makes people talk in tongues. Or he's some inexplicable combination of the three. Overally he's either incomprehensible or intolerable and often both. And he's always a he because, well, wouldn't he have to be.

So I fear that anyone with that much power would be inherently untrustworthy and eventually dangerous.

[pattylt]

I think our only chance at real world peace will be when the aliens come and either rule with an iron fist or force compliance in some form or another. I don’t think humans have it in us.

[brewerb]

[Aliza]

So from your POV, am I an intruder on this forum?

Would I be welcome on your forum, if you were to have one?

Well, you put me in an awkward position.     I could slip around that saying "its not my forum", but, to be technical, yeah.  And there are degrees of "intruderness".  If I kept a list, you would be close to the top of "OK".  If I had a forum myself, you probably wouldn't be there.  But that's because it would be "my forum and my rules".  

Hey, at least I'm honest...    Damn, where's my flak jacket...

I appreciate the honesty, and I'm glad that I've created an environment where you're comfortable being honest... But you did kind of put yourself in an awkward position by saying that you're comfortable taking hospitality from me, but that you would prefer not to reciprocate. I gotta chew on that for a bit, but I don't think I could be that kind of person. 

I opened my house to you and you came in, made yourself comfortable, and called ME an intruder. 

Really??

[Rhythmcs]

What if "world peace" was totally authoritarian?

You put your finger right on it -- I have trouble imagining how this would be accomplished any other way, especially by a single individual. And even if they could do it wisely, would it continue that way? The amount of power required to accomplish that would seem to be inevitably corrupting, especially once the individual died and passed on his or her power. 

The people who came up with the fairy tale couldn't think of any other way either.  They were ethnocentric theocrats who wished for a world made in their image, conveniently attributed to a god.

And this actually goes to the heart of my objection to the Xian god. He uses his power just like any human would.

-and that, in a nutshell, is both the problem with theism, the basis of antitheisms case. That belief in a personal and intervening deity isn't glitching out when bad shit comes of it. That's not a bug, it's a feature.