How can Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when ...?

[The Grand Nudger]

If your positions were solid, supported by facts, evidence, valid and sound arguments, and your opinion of them didn't change (or the evidence and facts didn't change), yes, it would be useful.

[Minimalist]

God did it. i'm not saying God did it because i don't have the answer, but because that is the answer that was already written down in the bible.

GODDIDIT!!!! Wow I can finally see through the light. I can't believe I have the answers to all question now.

Simply put, Goddidit.

like i said that is not the answer to all questions. just the answer of all questions answered by the bible. example: creation of the earth.

Sorry, chippy...you're still a bible-thumping idiot and nothing more.

[Abracadabra]

If your positions were solid, supported by facts, evidence, valid and sound arguments, and your opinion of them didn't change (or the evidence and facts didn't change), yes, it would be useful.

Well, it would be a useful log to have around in any case.

If you views and opinions do chance you can study your own previous thinking to see precisely where and when you were persuaded to see things differently.

For example, there was a time when I was a Christian. At that time I did give arguments supporting the biblical picture of God. However, I confess that at that time I was nowhere near as well-versed as I am concerning what the scriptures actually say. I was assuming far too much.

So my awakening came directly from those scriptures themselves. The more I studied them the more I realized they can't be true.

I even tried for the "abstract metaphor approach", but that approach is utterly futile. Even as metaphors they are still absurd. The bottom line is that even as metaphors they are still basically saying the same things:

1. God condones male-chauvinism.
2. God is punishing women using sorrowful conception and childbirth as a curse.
3. God is unpredictable, drowning sinners one moment, then supposedly sacrificing his son to save them the next.
4. Even as metaphors, every solution from this God is based on violence and never resolves the problem anyway.

So even trying to support it as abstract metaphors doesn't help.

It's hopelessly impossible to salvage as anything even remotely reasonable.

~~~~

And then I remember a truly vivid awakening in my life with the following thought,...

Why the hell am I even trying to salvage this utterly stupid nonsense?

To keep a dream of a potential heaven alive?
To relieve myself of any fear that I might end up in a place of eternal damnation?

The answers to those questions were truly simple.

No, I'm not desperate to keep a dream of an potential eternal heaven alive.

And no, I have absolutely no fear of any truly "all-benevolent" God casting me into a place of eternal damnation. That's absurd itself. I know that I don't deserve such a horrific fate. Therefore any God who would do that to me could not possibly be "all-benevolent" in the first place.

It seems to me that only people who actually know that they are despicable enough to truly deserve to be cast into a state of eternal damnation truly have any reason to even fear this religion.

Because a truly "benevolent" God would never cast someone like me into a state of eternal damnation. That very act would necessarily be an unrighteous act, thus proving that this supposedly "benevolent" God cannot possibly be "benevolent" or "righteous".

In short the only way this God could hurt me is if he violates the premise that he's supposed to be a righteous benevolent God anyway.

So these fables are totally beyond absurd.

We need a more powerful word to describe just how truly oxymoronic these idiotic fables truly are.

---

When you stop and think about it, these ancient Hebrews, and other religious cultures especially in the Mediterranean region including the Greeks, have created such utterly idiotic fables of "Gods" and spirituality, that they have convinced secular-minded people that the very notion of a spiritual essence to life must be totally idiocy.

Thanks a lot ancient Hebrews! Great job at turning everyone off to even remotely considering a spiritual essence to life!

[The Grand Nudger]

Which arguments did you find convincing when you were a christian? Which did you feel confident leveraging against others? Their fables are no more or less idiotic than anyone else's. Your favorite traditions have also had the same effect, in fact, they had this effect much, much earlier.

"There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes, order, &c, produce any real effect,
The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes
Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense."
(snipped)
"Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here
all these ceremonies for the dead, — there is no other fruit anywhere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka

[Abracadabra]

Which arguments did you find convincing when you were a christian?

In truth, I don't think I ever found any arguments "convincing".

There are a few things you need to understand.

1. I was very young and naive at the time.
2. My parents told me that the Bible is true.
3. The pastor of our church told me that the Bible is true.
4. Everyone going to our church acted like they believed it too.

I was naive. I was also 'convinced' that since so many seemingly sensible adults believed in it, then it must have some merit. All these people can't be that stupid (that was my thinking at the time). But unfortunately that was erroneous reasoning.

It was clearly erroneous on a much larger scale which I confess that I did not even perceive at that young age. In other words, on the larger scale of humanity there were many people who did not believe in the Christian bible. That was no readily apparent to me, plus I was taught that people who don't believe are simply non-believer who will eventually come around to believing in the end. (in other words I was being scammed even by other naive Christian who had themselves been scammed in this very same way).

Not only are there people who don't believe in the bible or the Abrahamic religions at all. But even the Abrahamic religions themselves are at each others throats over their own fairy tales. The significance of these thing was not apparent to me at a young naive and "brainwashed" age.

I was taught that the Bible is the word of God.

So I wasn't truly even considering arguments of whether or not the bible was actually "God's Word". I was more focused on arguments concerning the correct interpretations of those words.

It became crystal clear to me almost immediately that a strict verbatim approach could not stand. But I was born into a FREE METHODIST Christian family. Our whole entire extended family were basically FREE METHODISTS. And they do take a very liberal abstract view of the scriptures, favoring a metaphorical approach. They focus on the New Testament and Jesus and point out that Jesus taught in parables thus it makes sense that the Old Testament is also merely parables as well.

So that made some sense to me at the time. Free Methodists view the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament and the ideals taught by Jesus. So it's natural for them to accept the Old Testament as merely metaphors and parables not to be taken too literally.

That was the basis for even trying to keep the thing afloat.

But like I say, even as metaphors and parables it still ultimately fails to stand. Because ultimately even if the things didn't actually happen precisely as they are stated in the scriptures, the bottom line is that the God would still basically be saying the same things anyway, even if only through parables and metaphors.

In other words, even as metaphors and parables, you still end up with a God who supports violence as a means of solving problems and supports male-chauvinism toward woman.

Even as metaphors and parables, you still end up with a God who's ignorant violent "solutions" to problems NEVER solve anything!

So even as metaphors and parables it's a lost cause.

Trying to demand that it's taken verbatim, is even worse.

But neither approach can save it. It's stupid in all cases.

Trying to salvage this Hebrew Mythology is no different from trying to salvage Greek Mythology. They are both utterly stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, the ad populum was one? That's definitely the one I think is probably the most convincing to children (as you've mentioned, all of these people, adults, your parents...they can't be wrong).

Have you ever considered that maybe god is mean, and nasty, and a male chauvinist (or that he is all of those things and also omnibenevolent-as per your sig line..why would god be bound by logic)? I mean, I don't like the idea either, but that doesn't mean it can't be true because of those things. God might be exactly the kind of bastard you wouldn't like. That's not really much of a reason for disbelief in god, simply because you don't like him or the type of being he is said to be. Though it's obviously more than enough reason not to worship him.

On a related note, have you ever wondered if your upbringing might have left a legacy of gullibility in it's wake? That the claims you were raised with might have conditioned you to be accepting towards other, similar claims, or requiring of a replacement once your sense of the numinous had been lost with regards to those once cherished(i use the term loosely, very loosely) but now discarded beliefs?

I agree, trying to salvage these myths with regards to reality is pointless, but the same can be said of the vedas, or the various myths that form the focus of worship in Wicca, etc.

[Abracadabra]

So, the ad populum was one? That's definitely the one I think is probably the most convincing to children (as you've mentioned, all of these people, adults, your parents...they can't be wrong).

Well, that's absolutely the case for me. Had I not been born into the religion by family and culture, I would have never even considered it. I would have passed it off just as quickly as Greek mythology is passed off by Christians. It's not even worthy of giving deep consideration to it.

So yes, the fact that I was born into a close-knit family and local culture that believed in and supported this religion was a major factor. But let's face it, it's also in movies and every aspect of humanity. Not to mention that it used to also be supported by schools as well.

It's clearly a religion that has a very long history of trying to brainwash people to support it, lest they be proclaimed "heathens" and rejected from mainstream society.

Have you ever considered that maybe god is mean, and nasty, and a male chauvinist (or that he is all of those things and also omnibenevolent-as per your sig line..why would god be bound by logic)?

A God that is not bound by that kind of logic would be an untrustworthy God. How could you put your TRUST in a totally untrustworthy God?

More over, why would anyone want to worship a God who's as ignorant and stupid as a barroom drunkard?

If such a God were real, I could never "worship" it or wish to become its eternal servant. At best all I could do is pretend to like it just to avoid it's unreasonable evil wrath. But a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's truly in the hearts and minds of men would know that I was only pretending anyway. So you couldn't fool this demonic God anyway.

In short, if the biblical God truly is a mean nasty bastard then I'd be doomed no matter what. Appealing to Jesus to "save" me from such a hateful demonic God would be futile.

The religion would break down anyway.

So that doesn't help.

I mean, I don't like the idea either, but that doesn't mean it can't be true because of those things. God might be exactly the kind of bastard you wouldn't like. That's not really much of a reason for disbelief in god, simply because you don't like him or the type of being he is said to be. Though it's obviously more than enough reason not to worship him.

But you've just sealed the deal right there.

If you couldn't sincerely respect or worship a mean dastardly God. Then it would be futile for you to appeal to Jesus to 'save' you from this God.

In fact, you're supposed to love this God with all your mind, heart, and soul. If you couldn't do that with sincerity then even Jesus would be powerless to 'save' you.

So the overall religion cannot be "saved" by merely confessing that the God of this religion truly is an asshole prick. That can't work.

I mean, damn, if person has to that far to try to salvage this mythology shouldn't they start to seriously question why they are trying so hard to salvage a myth that proclaims that our creator is a bigger jerk than a common street thug?

On a related note, have you ever wondered if your upbringing might have left a legacy of gullibility in it's wake? That the claims you were raised with might have conditioned you to be accepting towards other, similar claims, or requiring of a replacement once your sense of the numinous had been lost with regards to those once cherished(i use the term loosely, very loosely) but now discarded beliefs?

If anything I hope the experience has taught me just the opposite. I'm never going to accept anything anyone ever tells me again without delving into it deeply on my own and questioning everything about it!

I agree, trying to salvage these myths with regards to reality is pointless, but the same can be said of the vedas, or the various myths that form the focus of worship in Wicca, etc.

I agree. Especially if you are going to hold the Vedas, or anything published about Wicca as though it is some sort of "gospel truth" or dogma.

In truth I use the term "Wicca" extremely loosely. I can guarantee you that many people who claim to be "Wiccans" would not support my views concerning "Wicca".

In fact, it's really a bit of cheat for me to even use that term. I use it for personal reasons, and I'm well aware that it drives atheists bananas. (ha ha)

I have my own reasons for using the term.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, christianity definitely had a head start on you, it's everywhere, and has been everywhere for a long time. You'd have to run pretty fast to overtake it and get away from it if you were born in it's talons, so to speak. One of the things that really makes my skin crawl about the whole bit. It's this massive faceless inhuman oppressor (that has outlived generations of us), and yet it's full of smiling people who are not oppressors themselves.

Untrustworthy sure, but non-existent? Not for that reason. Some people like barroom drunkards, religious thought has something for everyone. Some denominations actually do hold that there are people incapable of worshiping christ (or that we all are, and require help from god himself in that area). They hold this up as proof of the claims to truth made by their denomination. Whether or not you could worship it, and whether or not you were doomed has no bearing on whether or not this god exists. Some denominations might break down, but many would and do thrive on exactly this sort of dogma.

You could make the appeal, and then god could grant you the faith, which is again, consistent with some denominations dogma. You're supposed to, yes, but you're fallen..remember? Some don't feel they have to go anywhere at all, that there is no reason to salvage their myths because there is nothing in their myths that contradicts what we know. You know "you can't rule this out" or "science provides ample evidence and support for my faith..etc". They're not salvaging anything, because nothing is broken.

I hope so too, but again, I'm not just wondering whether or not you'll fall for what other people tell you, but whether or not you can trust what you tell yourself.

If I'm going to make truth claims based off of and in accordance with "knowledge"I find in a book (like the vedas) it had damn well better be the gospel truth! What's published about Wicca and what is not aren't entirely different things. It is a sort of umbrella religion though, it means many things to many people so it does get dicey...you have to first figure out just what type of wiccan you're talking about before speaking to the specifics. Even then, there's a heavy dose of customization. Wicca doesn't drive me nuts, I've been on witchvox for years and years..lol. Some wiccans do though. I think wicca is quaint and pleasant, for the most part. Bullshit, but happy bullshit.

[Abracadabra]

What's published about Wicca and what is not aren't entirely different things. It is a sort of umbrella religion though, it means many things to many people so it does get dicey...you have to first figure out just what type of wiccan you're talking about before speaking to the specifics. Even then, there's a heavy dose of customization. Wicca doesn't drive me nuts, I've been on witchvox for years and years..lol. Some wiccans do though. I think wicca is quaint and pleasant, for the most part. Bullshit, but happy bullshit.

I agree about Wicca.

In fact, my personal version of "Wicca" is so highly personally customized that the question of whether or not the term can even still be applied to it is a very legitimate question indeed.

One thing I will agree with is that it is "happy" bull shit. Or at least my version it. I'm quite sure there are "Wiccan Cults" out there that may not be so nice though, but then again, if they are attempting to harm anyone they are in violation of the "Wiccan Rede".

In fact, to best understand my own personal views on Wicca, the first thing that needs to be understood is that I view "spirits" and the "God and Goddess" quite abstractly as "thought forms" and psychological archetypes. Certainly not as actual personified Zeus-like God and Goddess.

In other words, I realized that a lot of pantheists, naturalists, and even animists, or Taoists-minded people were embracing Wicca in very abstract ways. Recognizing that type of acceptance of views is what gave me the "green light" to embrace it myself and shape it into something that I too can embrace.

So my view of "Wicca" is a highly abstract view more along the lines of psychological archetypes than about actual 'personified' Gods and external spirits.

I actually have quite a bit to say about that in terms of Spirit being an "emergent property" of thoughts. If my spirit can emerge from my thoughts, then why can't other spirits emerge from my thoughts as well?

In fact, if a single brain gives rise to two emergent spirits simultaneously we simply label the person as being "mentally ill". In other words, we think of that as being a "defective brain".

But what the hell? If a brain can give rise to one spirit via an emergent property, then why not two? Or more? And if so, then which of those are the "real spirit"?

It becomes like, 'What's my Line?"

Will the "Real Spirit" please stand up? (ha ha)

If I can succeed in becoming schizophrenic, I will have achieved spiritual success in terms of invoking a spirit. (ha ha)

I confess that I haven't been able to achieve that quite yet, but I'm working hard at it.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's actually a very common form of Wicca.

To address the question of why a brain can't give rise to more than one spirit (and in light of your definition of spirit), it can. The consequences of doing so are often negative, if those consequences are negative enough, and they occur early enough (let's say early enough to prevent successful reproduction, or if for some reason individuals who exhibit these characteristics are acted upon by sexual selection - people wont fuck them for whatever reason), we wouldn't expect to find many cases of this as they would be selected against. Which is exactly what we see. This only applies if those things which give rise to this are inheritable..which it appears that many are.