Why I'm still not a Christian.

[Simon Moon]

I am not a Christian, because there is just nothing to support any of the supernatural and god claims.

But even if I was sure the god of the Bible exists, I would still not be a Christian because I find that god to be an immoral tyrant. The concept of 'substitutionary atonement' is immoral, and being a blood sacrifice even more so.

I would never want to worship a god that made one blunder after another, and the only way he could think of a way around his own mistakes is to sacrifice himself to himself, as a loophole for his own rules. And then punish anyone who isn't gullible enough to fall for any of it.

The only good thing about the god of the Bible is he almost assuredly does not exist.


*There, I fixed it for myself.

[Drich]

Premise: There is something greater than myself.

Hypothesis #1: that something is the grand everything, maker of it all who has nothing better to do than dote on every minor decision I make with an eye to judging my merit and/or guiding me.

Hypothesis #2: that something is an aspect of consciousness which includes me but is more than me. The totality of myself has an interest in my doings since it is inextricably tied up with me.

Umm .. I find the second option less .. I don't know .. insanely self absorbed and ..what's the word I'm looking for .. grandiose. That's the one. Yep, it is just a lot less extravagant to attribute that which is greater than myself to the organism/consciousness that gives rise to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful as hell. This organism had the wisdom to put me together and then develop into a creature with a conscious capacity for acting with learned independence in the moment. As long as I prove useful my organism will probably keep me going. It is humbling to realize you are not the final word on who you are or what you may do.

Might sound crazy as hell, but compare it to hypothesis #1. I rest my case.

So... Hypothesis 2 which makes you apart of a 'consciencnousness that is greater than your self' is somehow LESS self absorbed/grandiose than hypothesis one where the indivisual is subservient to God?

Is that 'dragon logic?'

[Mudhammam]

So... Hypothesis 2 which makes you apart of a 'consciencnousness that is greater than your self' is somehow LESS self absorbed/grandiose than hypothesis one where the indivisual is subservient to God?

Is that 'dragon logic?'

What you call "subservient to God" I understand you to mean "subservient to my ego that I self-identify as a god."

So, yeah. #2 is less self-absorbed.

[Whateverist]

Oh I suppose it is self absorbed in that it reflects a genuine interest to understand myself. I find us to be just fascinating creatures. Sad truth is, my self is the only one I have direct access to. So yeah, that makes me a bit self absorbed. Still to imagine something greater that is structurally on-board from birth is a hell of a lot less extravagant than imagining an external being that made everything that exists hanging on my every thought and deed.

[Zen Badger]

I wasn't a christian when I was six years old and treating our religious indoctrination classes at school as fairytales.

The more I've discovered about what's actually in the bible has only reinforced that position.

[Drich]

Oh I suppose it is self absorbed in that it reflects a genuine interest to understand myself. I find us to be just fascinating creatures. Sad truth is, my self is the only one I have direct access to. So yeah, that makes me a bit self absorbed. Still to imagine something greater that is structurally on-board from birth is a hell of a lot less extravagant than imagining an external being that made everything that exists hanging on my every thought and deed.

So.. Dragon logic?

[Mudhammam]

Is that code for Satanic influence?

[Pizza]

Satanic logic sounds a cool name for a heavy metal band.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

1. No evidence for what they believe that satisfies my very low baseline for things that would make me doubt my non-ascription.

2. Very, very poor arguments that have been recycled over and over in an effort to convince in lieu of said evidence. 'Because the bible says so' :|

[Mr Greene]

1: DISHONESTY

2: No evidence of intelligence beyond this biosphere, if you have evidence talk to SETI, otherwise refer to 1.
If there is anything, it ain't out there, it'll be contained within this biosphere, so references to the origins of the universe instantly fall on point 1.

3: Appeals to emotion; inherently unreliable and thus automatically refer to point 1.

4: Wordy "answers" blatantly constructed to confuse, referring to point 1.

5: Resolute unwillingness to address point 1.