Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Let's not also forget the Christians' (at least in the USA) tireless efforts to put out the message that this is a Christian country, and that Others don't "really" belong, even if they're somewhat tolerated. That's why it was so important to get "In God We Trust" on the money, to alter the Pledge of Allegiance, et cetera, and then to flaunt it every chance they get. Crosses and monuments to the Ten Commandments on our public properties. Politicians and criminal defendants swearing on the Bible. Major holidays for the Christian holidays, such as Christmas. And so on it goes-- the pressure is everywhere, and we as a social species have evolved a strong tendency toward conformity. That degree of social pressure can eventually cause a person to try to conform to the wishes of family/community, especially in times of emotional trauma and loneliness... the Christians openly recognize this, which is why they pimp the whole "Jesus, the friend of a wounded heart" message so heavily.
As has already been stated, what would be good evidence of the "truth" of Christian claims would be to find a place where the Word was independently sent to, say, the residents of Palau, prior to the arrival of Westerners in that area. The very fact that every religion spreads as a meme is strong evidence to me that it's not really "from God", but a product of human psychology. For instance, they claim God sent Jesus to tell everyone on earth about how to get to heaven... well, everyone on earth except for the ~75 generations of Native Americans who went nearly 1500 years without getting to hear that message. God is apparently a pretty poor planner, as he appears to have had no knowledge of those people in the "New World" until Westerners stumbled upon it. (Thus the attempted Mormon "solution" to this problem, laughable as its claims are.) And as has already been pointed out, it's "just amaaaaazing" that people overwhelmingly tend to join the religion into which they are born/raised, or in which culture they have been immersed.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
(May 8, 2016 at 12:16 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Let's not also forget the Christians' (at least in the USA) tireless efforts to put out the message that this is a Christian country, and that Others don't "really" belong, even if they're somewhat tolerated. That's why it was so important to get "In God We Trust" on the money, to alter the Pledge of Allegiance, et cetera, and then to flaunt it every chance they get. Crosses and monuments to the Ten Commandments on our public properties. Politicians and criminal defendants swearing on the Bible. Major holidays for the Christian holidays, such as Christmas. And so on it goes-- the pressure is everywhere, and we as a social species have evolved a strong tendency toward conformity. That degree of social pressure can eventually cause a person to try to conform to the wishes of family/community, especially in times of emotional trauma and loneliness... the Christians openly recognize this, which is why they pimp the whole "Jesus, the friend of a wounded heart" message so heavily.
As has already been stated, what would be good evidence of the "truth" of Christian claims would be to find a place where the Word was independently sent to, say, the residents of Palau, prior to the arrival of Westerners in that area. The very fact that every religion spreads as a meme is strong evidence to me that it's not really "from God", but a product of human psychology. For instance, they claim God sent Jesus to tell everyone on earth about how to get to heaven... well, everyone on earth except for the ~75 generations of Native Americans who went nearly 1500 years without getting to hear that message. God is apparently a pretty poor planner, as he appears to have had no knowledge of those people in the "New World" until Westerners stumbled upon it. (Thus the attempted Mormon "solution" to this problem, laughable as its claims are.) And as has already been pointed out, it's "just amaaaaazing" that people overwhelmingly tend to join the religion into which they are born/raised, or in which culture they have been immersed.
Aren't you confusing cause and effect? Why do we have Christianity woven through the society and government? Because in the past, the majority (even more than now) were Christians. So you are kind of making the argument there are a lot of Christians because there were a lot of Christians.
Regarding your point about those who have not heard, I found this paragraph that summed it up nicely: But then we face a difficulty: Is possible that only those who have heard about Christ can be saved? Or is salvation also available for those who haven't heard about him? The element which solves this dilemma is the criteria according to which God will judge those who never heard about Christ and grant them salvation. The Bible states that God is holy and will judge humans with justice (Acts 17,31), according to the available measure of revelation they had and their response to it, expressed through their deeds (Romans 2,6ff), words (Matthew 12,36-37) and thoughts (Hebrews 4,12). The amount of revelation one has determines a consequent measure of responsibility on his behalf (Luke 12,47-48). In the Western world, almost anyone has elementary knowledge about Christianity, and therefore the terms of one's salvation are clear. As for those who never had the chance to hear the Christian message or heard a perverted version of it, it is obvious that their judgment will require other criteria than responding to the historical Jesus Christ. http://www.comparativereligion.com/neverheard.html
(May 8, 2016 at 12:16 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Let's not also forget the Christians' (at least in the USA) tireless efforts to put out the message that this is a Christian country, and that Others don't "really" belong, even if they're somewhat tolerated. That's why it was so important to get "In God We Trust" on the money, to alter the Pledge of Allegiance, et cetera, and then to flaunt it every chance they get. Crosses and monuments to the Ten Commandments on our public properties. Politicians and criminal defendants swearing on the Bible. Major holidays for the Christian holidays, such as Christmas. And so on it goes-- the pressure is everywhere, and we as a social species have evolved a strong tendency toward conformity. That degree of social pressure can eventually cause a person to try to conform to the wishes of family/community, especially in times of emotional trauma and loneliness... the Christians openly recognize this, which is why they pimp the whole "Jesus, the friend of a wounded heart" message so heavily.
As has already been stated, what would be good evidence of the "truth" of Christian claims would be to find a place where the Word was independently sent to, say, the residents of Palau, prior to the arrival of Westerners in that area. The very fact that every religion spreads as a meme is strong evidence to me that it's not really "from God", but a product of human psychology. For instance, they claim God sent Jesus to tell everyone on earth about how to get to heaven... well, everyone on earth except for the ~75 generations of Native Americans who went nearly 1500 years without getting to hear that message. God is apparently a pretty poor planner, as he appears to have had no knowledge of those people in the "New World" until Westerners stumbled upon it. (Thus the attempted Mormon "solution" to this problem, laughable as its claims are.) And as has already been pointed out, it's "just amaaaaazing" that people overwhelmingly tend to join the religion into which they are born/raised, or in which culture they have been immersed.
Aren't you confusing cause and effect? Why do we have Christianity woven through the society and government? Because in the past, the majority (even more than now) were Christians. So you are kind of making the argument there are a lot of Christians because there were a lot of Christians.
Regarding your point about those who have not heard, I found this paragraph that summed it up nicely: But then we face a difficulty: Is possible that only those who have heard about Christ can be saved? Or is salvation also available for those who haven't heard about him? The element which solves this dilemma is the criteria according to which God will judge those who never heard about Christ and grant them salvation. The Bible states that God is holy and will judge humans with justice (Acts 17,31), according to the available measure of revelation they had and their response to it, expressed through their deeds (Romans 2,6ff), words (Matthew 12,36-37) and thoughts (Hebrews 4,12). The amount of revelation one has determines a consequent measure of responsibility on his behalf (Luke 12,47-48). In the Western world, almost anyone has elementary knowledge about Christianity, and therefore the terms of one's salvation are clear. As for those who never had the chance to hear the Christian message or heard a perverted version of it, it is obvious that their judgment will require other criteria than responding to the historical Jesus Christ. http://www.comparativereligion.com/neverheard.html
I don't argue that we have a heavy tradition of Christianity (because of the majority population) in this country. However, our country is a secular nation, deliberately founded by both Christian and Deist (some of whom would be called agnostics, today) men to be free from religious domination of government, as found in the European nations at the time.
The Pledge and the Motto, to which I am referring, were changed in 1954, at the behest of the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization, primarily), at the height of the Red Scare and the "House Un-American Activities Committee" (ironically the most communist-sounding title of all time), and so the members of Congress were in danger of being called Reds if they voted against it. The Pledge was written by a Baptist minister in the 1890s, and originally read "one nation indivisible". Thus, the Christian movement deliberately divided the phrase by inserting their monotheism, thereby excluding polytheists and atheists alike, because why not? Fuck them, right?
Even more amusing is the fact that our motto read E Pluribus Unum prior to that change, which means "out of many, one", meaning that again, the Christians managed to divide our nation with their attempts to increase the theocracy level of our secular government.
So, respectfully, I do not believe I am getting cause and effect confused. Under our Constitution, religion is to be a private affair, freely practiced by all Americans (or not, as our conscience tells us), and is not to be part of our democratic human (secular) government. And yet, at every turn, Christians do everything in their power to insert their religious practices. If you had a good grasp of world history, it would horrify you as much as it does us.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
May 9, 2016 at 4:50 am (This post was last modified: May 9, 2016 at 4:51 am by robvalue.)
I've noticed over the years that some people (I'm not pointing fingers) do not see a difference between "religion" and "my religion", when it comes to what should and shouldn't be allowed. "Other religions" are just misguided fools of no significance.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
It has come up in another thread that natural theology (philosophical arguments) are not the reason once becomes a Christian. Natural theology should be properly understood as support for the direct revelation and personal revelation from God (the Bible and personal relationship respectively).
I believe, especially for an adult not raised in a Christian home, it is the appeal of Jesus as a person coupled with his teachings that draws people. Why do these things resonate with a large number of people?
It is obvious that we are somehow wired to believe in God/higher power/supernatural/purpose/destiny etc. Of course you will say this is a product of our evolution. There are several theories centered around the adaptive values of religion (social solidarity for one). However, these theories presuppose naturalism. So the result of this reasoning is that if God did exist or did not exist, we would still be wired to believe God exists.
I think another reason this resonates with people is Jesus' main message that forgiveness, personal peace, a relationship with God, and eteral life is possible.
a. there are a lot of people, who have had tough experiences that find the forgiveness and internal peace very appealing.
b. when you meet someone who has been a Christian a long time and exemplifies Jesus' teachings and shares how God has been a constant comfort and support to them in their daily lives, that is very appealing as well.
c. eternal life, how can you beat that? This component also helps you make sense/cope of the shortness of life, tragedies, and pain endured while we are here.
Another appealing quality of Christianity is having the question of purpose and place in the universe answered.
a. with atheism, at best, you are a happy accident with no overall purpose that will very shortly die and cease to exist.
b. contrast that with the purpose of man is to "Glorify God and enjoy him forever". We were created for a reason and daily life has purpose and you really want others to know what you have found.
In addition, Jesus modeled his teachings of love, compassion, and forgiveness for your fellow man and in doing so set an example that, if aspired to, would result in a very fulfilling life. Perhaps you are not old enough, but once you contemplate the brevity of life, finding fulfillment becames important.
While I know the one-liners will start flying in a moment, please contemplate the point I made at the beginning: It is not the KCA, or where did life come from, or arguments about origins of morality that converts people to Christianity, it is Jesus and his message that does that and I thought it important to make that clear.
A good question. I think that there are a number of different reasons. It also may be difficult to answer, as I see a difference, in what first pointed one towards Christianity, and why they became a Christian as more of process. Some are Christians, because their parents where Christians, for some it is a warm fuzzy feeling, for some it is because of evidence, and some through personal experience. Some come to Christianity later in life, through evidence. For Blaise Pascal and John Newton and from what I hear a growing number in Muslim countries it is because of a vision. For myself, it was largely the history, that the faith was built upon, and referencing back to that history.
I do think that you may be under estimating apologetics however. A good number of people come to God through reason. J. Warner Wallace recently posted on this. Both himself and the interviewer (Abdu Murray) both became Christians because of evidence. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/i-c...ologetics/ I think you would probably like Wallaces books. He says a lot about his coming to be a Christian from what he describes as a aggressive atheists, and his approach and experience as an investigative detective.
I'm glad you asked the question. I'm finding the responses both interesting and informative.
One apologetic with sound premises and no fallacies, that's a unicorn I'd really love to see.
All religions get started the same way. The person, or group get's tired of the old ways, they take the motifs of surrounding and or prior clubs, promote similar ideas with different details, and demonize the old ways at the same time. When enough of that majority gets upset at the new upstart, they play the persecuted minority. Everyone loves an underdog story who goes on to be victorious.
Buddhism got started as a rejection of the Hinduism it was spawned from. The first Hebrews started that as rejection of the Canaanite polytheism that spawned it. Christianity incorporated the OT of the Jews to market their new religion, but still today sell the idea that only Jesus can be the one true hero. Islam is simply the third book in the series.
Religions don't pop up out of a vacuum. The start the same way, and only are successful, not because the religion is unique that has a patent on our species morality, they simply get successfully marketed, like Coke and Pepsi compete.
(May 8, 2016 at 7:20 am)robvalue Wrote: Has anyone ever "come to Jesus" without having heard about him and the stories surrounding him for long periods?
I think not. The seeping in of ideas surrounding you is not surprising. People independently describing "meeting" Jesus, while isolated from any mention of him, would be surprising.
In short, people are very susceptible to the appeal to popularity fallacy. If many people seem to believe it, it appears a reasonable belief.
Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.
Conversion experiences like this have more to do with the nature of human psychology than the message being promoted. The great tent revivals preached a far less 'friendly' message than contemporary revivals do, but the atmosphere was the same. Hysteria and group think are not good reasons to adopt any belief.
(May 8, 2016 at 8:10 am)SteveII Wrote: Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.
Conversion experiences like this have more to do with the nature of human psychology than the message being promoted. The great tent revivals preached a far less 'friendly' message than contemporary revivals do, but the atmosphere was the same. Hysteria and group think are not good reasons to adopt any belief.
Can you name some other examples that would illustrate your point that the message is not important? Hysteria and group think might come into play while one is at the meeting, but what accounts for days and years later when most are still Christians?
(May 9, 2016 at 4:50 am)robvalue Wrote: I've noticed over the years that some people (I'm not pointing fingers) do not see a difference between "religion" and "my religion", when it comes to what should and shouldn't be allowed. "Other religions" are just misguided fools of no significance.
I think you are right. Religions freedom should not be limited to Christians.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
