Better reasons to quit Christianity

[MountOlympus]

Because you should live for today, and not give two shits about what happens to your "soul" after you die.

Besides, the main symbol in Christianity is a fucking Crucifix (or Crux). That's a fucking torture device. Why the hell would you want to wear a torture device around your neck? Because someone was tortured on it?

[spockrates]

Why mine alone? Don't we all have a stake in figuring this out? Shouldn't we share the burden?

Someone once told me that humans were created when a space alien named Rick dropped people shaped candy when he landed on Earth. The candy reacted with compounds in the air and the candy sprang to life. The candy was called "Hadam and Weave", which translates in the alien's language to "Good and Plenty". Over time, the candy from "Hadam and Weave" became mistranslated to "Adam and Eve".

So isn't it also your burden to prove this story? Don't you have a stake in figuring it out?

Now do you see how stupid your comment is?

Stupid? Perhaps. I'm certainly ignorant, which is why I asked why I should consider becoming an atheist. The answer I got was that there is no life after life. So I asked, "How does one know there is no life after life?" and I get derision for asking why. You see, I know what atheists believe. I want to know why they believe so I know whether why they believe is why I should believe, too. Can you appreciate why I ask why?

[jupitor]

Someone once told me that humans were created when a space alien named Rick dropped people shaped candy when he landed on Earth. The candy reacted with compounds in the air and the candy sprang to life. The candy was called "Hadam and Weave", which translates in the alien's language to "Good and Plenty". Over time, the candy from "Hadam and Weave" became mistranslated to "Adam and Eve".

So isn't it also your burden to prove this story? Don't you have a stake in figuring it out?

Now do you see how stupid your comment is?

Stupid? Perhaps. I'm certainly ignorant, which is why I asked why I should consider becoming an atheist. The answer I got was that there is no life after life. So I asked, "How does one know there is no life after life?" and I get derision for asking why. You see, I know what atheists believe. I want to know why they believe so I know whether why they believe is why I should believe, too. Can you appreciate why I ask why?

There is life after life, I've had messages from the dead which transpired to be true....that does not mean there's a God but there is some system of sorts.

[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 many former christians such as myself, the hundreds of contradictions throughout the Bible are just the straw that broke the camel's back. The reason I exchanged christianity for freedom and happiness is obvious.

Wish you would have participated in the discussion thread where I asked if anyone knew of any biblical contradictions. Will you please name a significant one so I may consider it?

I know I know ... "I wasn't seeking god properly," "I wasn't a true christian," "I didn't do this, I didn't do that." "I should've tried other churches." I've heard it all before a thousand times. Let me guess, "god has been an amazing presence in your life" right? You "can't believe how good life became after you accepted jesus."

Well hooey for you. The rest of us have something called common sense, and believing that the Bible is your particular god's written word is ... sorry, just stupid.

Actually, there are aspects of my life I would not wish even on an enemy. As for the, "You weren't a true-blue Christian," argument, I get a lot of that from Protestants, myself.

[jupitor]

also if you read about Moses, God constantly visited his tent. At one point telling Moses that shekels had to be collected from families and the amount given to Aaron and his wife!!! I don't think so, its a load of BS

[spockrates]

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.

Why arrogant?

[MountOlympus]

It goes back to Epicurus's philosophy.

[spockrates]

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?

---

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.

Thanks.

There's more to it than just third person with the Gospels though. Matthew seems to have used Mark ...

If Jesus' disciple Matthew penned his gospel after Mark, why is this evidence he did not write the gospel?

... and John is simply an outlier that doesn't fit in all that well with the Synoptics.

Witnesses? I doubt it.

From what I understand, John was the youngest disciple who outlived the others. He spent his last days exiled on an island and had many visitors and even his own disciples. If I were a Christian at the time who visited John in exile, I'd ask him to tell me something Jesus said, or did that I did not already know from the previous gospels. It makes sense to me that John, near the end of his life, would write a gospel with people like these in mind.

[Mister Agenda]

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

Look, here's the deal with the burden of proof: you claim something exists. It is not then up to us to prove to you that it doesn't, for much the same reason we think it's a good principle in law that if I say you owe me ten thousand dollars, the burden isn't on you to prove that you don't. Strong, or gnostic, atheism, makes a claim which puts the burden of proof on them: that no God or gods of any stripe or version exist in reality. Weak, or agnostic, atheism doesn't make that claim, we're just saying we don't believe yours.

Although we enjoy playing with visiting theists, the purpose of this forum is not to convert theists to atheists. The vast, vast majority of atheists who were formerly theists weren't converted to atheism by being persuaded by atheists...we did the work ourselves.

For instance: I was a devout Pentecostal. As an act of devotion, I undertook to read the KJV cover-to-cover. Then, hoping the King's English was somehow impairing my understanding; I read it again in a modern English version. Then I became what I would now call an agnostic theist. I still believed there was some sort of God, but I could no longer believe the Bible was inspired by a divine, morally superior being.

I still believed in all kinds of woo, having never been taught to be anything but gullible. I thought the Duke University studies had proven ESP, then I found some teenagers completely fooled them and when they tightened their protocols to eliminate trickery, their significant statistical results disappeared. I started to become a little skeptical. Around fifteen years later I had stopped believing in ancient astronauts, alien visitation, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, Bigfoot, and so forth; but like many people I thought agnostic was a spot between theist and atheist that was more reasonable because it was open-minded...and I still had a little trouble with the origin of the universe not involving design and intent.

Then I took an Intro to Religion course the same semester as a Logic 102 course. My religion professor was an Orthodox Christian who believed reason was on his side. As I watched him twist himself into logical pretzels trying to support his (fairly liberal) beliefs at the same time I was learning about logical fallacies, I started to wonder if 'keeping an open mind' was worth it. Then I learned about proper application of the burden of proof in my Logic class, and it was SUCH a relief! I realized that I don't have ANY obligation to accept something provisionally just because I can't prove it isn't so! The logical position is the reverse: don't accept a proposition without a reason to think it's true proportionate to the extraordinariness of the claim! I also came to consciously maintain as a maxim that wanting something to be true in no way makes it more likely to be true. I read some books on my own about science and logic and atheism, and took an intro physics class that cleared up some of my cosmological misgivings, and realized that I'm an atheist...that at some point in all that, I had stopped even provisionally accepting God as a significant possibility. I realized I had been treating God differently from other propositions because of my early training to believe, but now I was treating it just as I would any other story someone wanted me to believe.

That was well before 'new atheism' and without the aid of the internet. You have many more resources at your disposal than I did, hopefully your journey from first serious doubt to realizing you're an (agnostic) atheist won't take 20 years like mine did.

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?

First, hardly any of us believe there's no God. Most of us don't believe there is a God. It's a subtle, but real difference, similar to believing you don't own a Mercedes as compared to not believing you DO own a Mercedes. Not believing you own a Mercedes is not an assertion that you don't. Which is why you're not getting much traction. The position most of us hold is that we haven't been persuaded so far by what's been presented in support of the idea that some God exists.

We don't even know what you mean by God until you tell us, something we've learned from countless theists is that you all have your own custom versions. Tell us what God you believe in and why you believe in it and we'll examine your definition and reasons and let you know what's sound and what's not. Afterwards, you'll have something to think about, if you're brave enough.

As a rule of thumb, we all ultimately persuade ourselves. The question is wheter you will seek what makes you feel more secure or seek what is most probably true? Rational skepticism is a method to reduce the likelihood that you'll believe something that isn't true. It not only led me to not believe in God, it led me to not believe in homeopathy, wild conspiracy theories, or that you can protect your home from all manner of pests with ultrasonic transmitters. Even if you choose to hold a place for God that is unexamined, I heartily recommend you adopt the method for screening other propositions. A skeptical theist might find a long-term home here.

[spockrates]

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

Now wait, please. I'm not saying I'm certain I have found the truth. I'm saying that once one is certain she has found the truth, it should matter not what others think. The truth one is certain she has found is still the truth, even if nobody else believes it. Don't you think?