The benefits of being christian. Where are there???

[vulcanlogician]

But the fuckers are constantly stressed.  They can't fart without offending their silly-assed god.

In nearly all of your posts you make references to the other end of the torso, why is that?

Have you met Catholic Lady yet?

No, the bible is the claim. If all you have to prop up your god is the storybook, then you lose the race at the first fence, because then you need to establish why we should take the storybook any way seriously. See, if we're talking about gods, pointing to mythology is a monstrous red herring. And I don't chase red herring. Swallowing the mythology uncritically is precisely the opposite of critical thinking. Remember the evidence filter?

That's it - the Bible is the claim.

Great. Now can you substantiate that claim?

The Bible has to do it by itself. That is what it claims it can do and more.

You claim that critical thinking is "the great humanistic pill that nearly all will swallow" but critical thinking predates humanism by quite a few centuries. Furthermore it is possible to be a critical thinker without being a humanist (See Friedrich Nietzsche or H.L. Mencken).

One could argue that critical thinking existed before him, but the process was first put into coherent form by Socrates around 400 B.C. and then expounded upon by Plato. These two thinkers assumed a God figure, but (at the same time) they thought it was beneficial to ask others to substantiate claims. They were not humanists either. If critical thinking is some kind of "humanist conspiracy" it has been taking shape for quite a long time and has inspired Christians and atheists alike in their pursuit of the truth. If you are going to relate critical thinking to humanism, would you please explain yourself?

Asking you to substantiate the bible is not a trick question. If you actually managed to substantiate it (even in some small degree) I'm sure that Cyberman would admit that you had a point. His asking you to produce such substantiation is completely fair. You would do the same thing in his position.

If someone approached you with an outrageous claim -- like "You stole my car"-- you would demand that they substantiate it. It would be your right to make such a demand, wouldn't it? (I'm not sure this is where Cyberman was going, but it's my best guess.)

What if a Hindu approached you and said that Krishna is the Lord of the cosmos? Would you just believe him? Neither would I. What if, when you denied his claim and told him you believed the Bible, he said, "Oh, that Christian pill that many more will swallow..."? Would you take him seriously? Think about our perspective in regards to the statements you are making. If a Hindu made the sort of statements YOU are making, except in regards to Hinduism, would you be convinced? What if he pointed to a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and said that it substantiates itself? Would that convince you in the slightest?

You and all atheists have something in common. We completely agree on the credibility of the Bhagavad Gita. Now that we have found some common ground, please explain why we should regard the bible any differently than the Gita? Why do you believe what you believe? 

In many (but not all) cases, people believe stuff simply because they were told to. Do you believe the bible simply because you were told to by other people? Or is there another reason? What is that reason?