Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Skepsis]

How about, "You should have tried continually until you die"?
Apparently that is part of the conversion process, according to Drich.

[spockrates]

What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

For me personally I see a contradiction between what gets taught in any church today and what the history of the time has to say for itself. Even the Bible itself disagrees with e.g. Matthew/John being the ones who wrote their Gospels (they're in 3rd person).

After the many things that just didn't add up I got to a point where I had to be honest with myself and accept it for what it was... And personally it was anything but the story of the Son of God coming to save the world from what HE started.

Thucydides is believed by many scholars to be the greatest historian of ancient Greece. Does the fact that he wrote of himself in the third person prove he did not write any of the works scholars attribute to him?

http://www.answers.com/topic/thucydides


Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Thucydides

(born 460died 404 ) Greatest of ancient Greek historians. An Athenian who commanded a fleet in the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides failed to prevent the capture of the important city of Amphipolis and consequently was exiled for 20 years. During that period he wrote his History of the Peloponnesian War; evidently he did not live to complete it, for it stops abruptly in 411 . It presents the first recorded political and moral analysis of a nation's war policies, treating the causes of the conflict, the characters of the two states, and the technical aspects of warfare in a carefully drawn, strictly chronological narrative of events, including some in which he took an active part.



Gale Encyclopedia of Biography:
Thucydides

Thucydides writes of himself in the third person in his History. He relates that he was a general at the age of 30 (4.104); indicated that he was of the age of discretion during the entire war (5.26.5); expresses his pride as a soldier and his devotion to Pericles (2.31); defends the generals at Megara (4.73.4); reveals that he owns property in the mining district in Thrace (4.105.1); and relates the fact of his exile and the circumstances surrounding it (5.26).

[Napoléon]

I actually think the burden of proof is on whoever WANTS to persuade.

What are you commenting here for then, not like you want to persuade anyone or anything is it?

Oh, wait...

---

As for my reason?

Seems like an incredible waste of a life to be christian/religious to me.

Pascal's wager? What if you're wrong? Well I'll be telling god to go suck a dick for being such an asshole as to create a world where evidence exists for everything but himself.

But what if you're wrong about believing in your chosen god? Then you really have wasted the one opportunity on this earth you've had huh.

I know which risk I'd rather take, and judging by what I know from this universe (which is all you can reasonably go by), it doesn't seem very risky at all.

[spockrates]

What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

What if religion - including the worlds largest religion Christianity - gradually moved to the point of extinction leaving you in a minority and atheists comprising 90% of the worlds population?

Atheism has been an available menu option for a LONG LONG time. (Paleolithic/Neolithic.)

But you never know. It could happen.

A lot might be possible given another 20, 30, 40, 50 thousand years of evolution.

That's a possibility, yes. Another possibility held by some Christians is that atheists are a dying breed and the entire world will be converted to Christianity. However, no matter what the outcome, I'm sure you would agree with Socrates, who said to a friend:

If we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?

(Phaedrus)

[Napoléon]

If we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?

Sounds like an arrogant thing to say.

[FallentoReason]

That's a good point there. The world is definitely run by the people who turn up. How about this scenario:

We're all sitting at a table talking about life in general. Unexpectedly, a newcomer turns up and wants to join our conversation; so he does. This newcomer starts telling the rest of the group about weird and wonderful things that the others haven't heard, so they ask him to back up his claims.

Sound familiar? Replace the table with Atheistforums.org. Now then, why should I believe what you tell me is true? You're the newcomer who is here to persuade us, so show us some proof.

Time has nothing to do with truth, lies are as old as the world, truth has always existed.

Strawman. I was vaguely talking about burden of proof.

I agree with your statement though. Unlucky for you though, you are telling me what truth has apparently always existed, which means this is the part where you bring forth the proof of your claim. May I see it?

---

For me personally I see a contradiction between what gets taught in any church today and what the history of the time has to say for itself. Even the Bible itself disagrees with e.g. Matthew/John being the ones who wrote their Gospels (they're in 3rd person).

After the many things that just didn't add up I got to a point where I had to be honest with myself and accept it for what it was... And personally it was anything but the story of the Son of God coming to save the world from what HE started.

Thucydides is believed by many scholars to be the greatest historian of ancient Greece. Does the fact that he wrote of himself in the third person prove he did not write any of the works scholars attribute to him?

http://www.answers.com/topic/thucydides


Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Thucydides

(born 460died 404 ) Greatest of ancient Greek historians. An Athenian who commanded a fleet in the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides failed to prevent the capture of the important city of Amphipolis and consequently was exiled for 20 years. During that period he wrote his History of the Peloponnesian War; evidently he did not live to complete it, for it stops abruptly in 411 . It presents the first recorded political and moral analysis of a nation's war policies, treating the causes of the conflict, the characters of the two states, and the technical aspects of warfare in a carefully drawn, strictly chronological narrative of events, including some in which he took an active part.



Gale Encyclopedia of Biography:
Thucydides

Thucydides writes of himself in the third person in his History. He relates that he was a general at the age of 30 (4.104); indicated that he was of the age of discretion during the entire war (5.26.5); expresses his pride as a soldier and his devotion to Pericles (2.31); defends the generals at Megara (4.73.4); reveals that he owns property in the mining district in Thrace (4.105.1); and relates the fact of his exile and the circumstances surrounding it (5.26).

That's a fair point. There's more to it than just third person with the Gospels though. Matthew seems to have used Mark and John is simply an outlier that doesn't fit in all that well with the Synoptics.

Witnesses? I doubt it.

[Cinjin]

That's a possibility, yes. Another possibility held by some Christians is that atheists are a dying breed and the entire world will be converted to Christianity.

wait ... whaat?
Christians thought the world would be converted way back at the turn of the 20th century. They've been losing ground for decades. Hell, already, "I'm a christian," is just something people say because thats how they were raised. Christianity is a joke and it'll likely be nearly extinct in 200 years.

If we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?

I always get a chuckle when christians say that the have found, or they KNOW, the "truth." The truth is whatever you say it is and whatever you wish it to be, and the reason why the rest of us know it's not the truth is that you can't get 3 christards in a room to agree on exactly what that "truth" even is.

It's so much idiocy and outright lies. You really kind have to be at least a tad bit simple, if not completely to buy into the idea that an almighty god wrote a book through the hands of ancient uneducated goat herders several thousand years after creating the world in 7 days and eventually killing damn near everyone off in a genocidal tirade - only to eventually create himself in the womb of a teenage girl to one day sacrifice himself to himself for a nature he gave us in order to save us from a place he made himself.

/Lights and curtain

[spockrates]

I like your frank answer!

---

I was being sarcastic, and speaking to the judgmental attitude of some theists I have encountered. The truth is, in a lifetime of examining claims, I have not found sufficient reason to believe.

Oh, yay! Another Pascal's Wager thread!

:barf:

Sorry, I'll try to change the subject. I guess for me, personally it's logical to look beyond life, if there is a chance something is after life. Do you have evidence I should consider that nothing is after life?

It's not my burden to bear, and I'll not do so.

I don't really give a rip what you wish to talk about. Pascal's Wager is certainly nothing new, its been done to death here in some epic threads of inanity (please, please, do not post in the 'Aren't you atheists taking a big risk thread'). I've been doing this online discussion thing since the mid-1980's (not a typo), and it wasn't new then. Yet, like clockwork, someone comes in every few weeks thinking its some brilliant nugget of unassailable logic that has never been presented. It has, ad nauseum, and it has been shredded as many times.

Fresh arguments are likely to encounter significantly less derision.

Then I'd like to say I like your sarcastic answer!



No problem, I'll steer clear of Pascal. Thanks for the tip.

---

The burden of proof is yours, alone. ?

I dont remember ever voting for that rule.

Nice gig.

Sit back and claim the lucky, lazy, zero-burden of proof default position.

It is not lazy to do no work where no work is required, unlike morons who thinks he wiggle out of proof despite putting himself in a full burden of proof position through sheer infantile assertion.

---

So says the man who believes in bullshit because he likes it.


Give me a ring when you can find some evidence for your fucking fairy tales, pal.

Where is the man?

I'm workin' for him!

---

I actually think the burden of proof is on whoever WANTS to persuade. The world is run by the people who turn up

If atheists are happy to sit back and be unpersuasive non-stamp collectors thats their business.

So, is the burden of proof on me to persuade myself? Perhaps you are right. I do appreciate any help I can get, though.

---

I actually think the burden of proof is on whoever WANTS to persuade. The world is run by the people who turn up

If atheists are happy to sit back and be unpersuasive non-stamp collectors thats their business.

That's a good point there. The world is definitely run by the people who turn up. How about this scenario:

We're all sitting at a table talking about life in general. Unexpectedly, a newcomer turns up and wants to join our conversation; so he does. This newcomer starts telling the rest of the group about weird and wonderful things that the others haven't heard, so they ask him to back up his claims.

Sound familiar? Replace the table with Atheistforums.org. Now then, why should I believe what you tell me is true? You're the newcomer who is here to persuade us, so show us some proof.

Yes, but if the newcomer is asking, rather than telling, would the same be true? If I ask you why someone believes there is no God, is it up to me to answer my own question?

[Captain Jack Zodiac]

The reasons I quit Christianity are simple:
1. I was tired of being condemned to hell by people who were doing things that were worse than I was.

2. I reject any god that can send a person to heaven no matter how bad the things were that they did (rape, murder, and steal) their whole life as long as they ask forgiveness before they die, but can send a good person that helps people and makes the world a better place to hell because he didn't join the jesus club.

[spockrates]

I don't have any stake in it, do your own work. I mean honestly, are you hoping to completely abandon reason, because that's the road you're headed down. What you've done here btw, is assume that this issue deserves any respect or consideration beyond what it has already been given. Maybe it doesn't Spock. Just because it's important to you doesn't mean anybody else should give a flying fuck. It's like asking someone to "take a second look" thousands of times.

Sounds like I've struck out.

Strike one - I shouldn't ask if Christianity is illogical.

Strike two - I shouldn't ask if the Bible has any contradictions.

Strike three - I shouldn't ask if there is any reason at all why I should not remain a Christian!




Please tell me, my laughing hyena friend: What question should I ask at this forum?