Better reasons to quit Christianity

[MountOlympus]

Is everyone just ignoring the big picture that I posted? lol

[spockrates]

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.

Sounds like good reasons to me. There are Christians who don't hold either (1) or (2). Catholics are an example.

---

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

Well, I would not care what happens if I knew I'd have no soul to which something would happen! Do you have a reason why I should believe no soul will survive me?

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?

Yeah, I agree. That IS odd! I think we should all start hanging electric chairs around our necks in protest.

---

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.

You mean, there is a system of Karma, or something? Maybe. Are you saying this system is some sort of a naturally occurring thing, like the physical laws that govern our physical universe? Are there metaphysical laws that naturally occur, which govern the metaphysical universe?

---

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

Beats working for the man!

---

It goes back to Epicurus's philosophy.

Looks like the website blocked your image. Big brother is watching!

---

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.

I'm not claiming; I'm asking. The purpose of the discussion thread is to answer the question: What are some good reasons I should consider when trying to make up my mind whether I should become an atheist? (BTW, love the superhero costume!)

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.

But isn't my finding out why others decided not to become, or remain Christian doing the work myself? The difference of opinion you and I seem to have is over what the best method to figuring out the truth is. I think having discussions with those who think differently than I do is the best method.

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.

You mean, most here are agnostics, not atheists?

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.

I think you are misunderstanding. I did not start this discussion thread to prove something I believe; I started the discussion to ask why others don't believe. Can you appreciate the significant difference?

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.

I say, truth trumps security! As Socrates said, we have nothing to lose by seeking the truth except our ignorance.

---

Is everyone just ignoring the big picture that I posted? lol

Actually, I got a good look at the flowchart before it was blocked. I admire Epicurus. I believe he observed that the same man cannot step into the same river twice, for when he does, both he and the river have changed.



The difficulty I have with the flowchart is the premise that God could have created people who were free to choose evil, yet also guarantee that they never would choose evil. If the choice is yours and mine, it's no longer God's, so evil is always a possibility where people have complete freedom of choice. The upshot is that without such choice, love is impossible. Love trumps the evil of hate, I think. So being free to hate is worth the risk if the benefit from those who choose love outweighs the drawback of those who choose evil.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, I would not care what happens if I knew I'd have no soul to which something would happen! Do you have a reason why I should believe no soul will survive me?

All we have is that there's no good reason to think you do. Which puts the idea of soul survival on the same footing as the notion that when you die your life is transcribed onto a positronic brain at the galactic core and the resulting robot is used for forced labor by a cabal of alien cultists who worship the black hole at the center of the galaxy.

I'm not claiming; I'm asking. The purpose of the discussion thread is to answer the question: What are some good reasons I should consider when trying to make up my mind whether I should become an atheist? (BTW, love the superhero costume!)

Thanks for the compliment, I aim to please. I think I gave you a fairly lengthy and detailed answer, but you're focusing on points of disagreement rather than how what I said fails to answer your question. It's going to be hard to answer your question in a way that relates to you if you won't tell us what it is that you believe. Do you really expect us to guess, given the thousands of denominations of Christianity run through every individual's filter? Tell us why you believe and if your reason has a flaw, we'll tell you what it is. If knowing that your reason is flawed won't make a difference to you, there's really no point in anyone making any further effort regarding this matter.

But isn't my finding out why others decided not to become, or remain Christian doing the work myself?

It depends on whether you're really thinking about our answers or just yanking our chains.

The difference of opinion you and I seem to have is over what the best method to figuring out the truth is. I think having discussions with those who think differently than I do is the best method.

What people who think differently than you do have to say seems to slide right off you, though you're polite enough about it. It's only a good way to figure out what the truth is if you do the work of thinking through what you're hearing and figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

You mean, most here are agnostics, not atheists?

Most here are agnostics AND atheists. 'I'm an agnostic' is a good answer to a question like 'Do you think it's possible to know for sure if a God or gods really exist?' 'I'm an atheist' is a good answer to a question like 'Do you believe a God or gods really exist?'. Those are not good answers if you switch the questions though. 'Agnosticism' is about what you don't know, 'atheism' is about what you don't believe. Lots of people (maybe most) are agnostic theists, who admit they can't know but believe anyway. I was one for over a decade.

I think you are misunderstanding. I did not start this discussion thread to prove something I believe; I started the discussion to ask why others don't believe. Can you appreciate the significant difference?

Can you appreciate why the conversation will be much more productive if you tell us why you DO believe? We have no way of knowing if our answers are relatable to you without knowing that. As I said, I gave a fairly detailed account of how I came not to believe and you gave no sign of comprehending that I had danced to your tune. I'm working like a horse here, and bupkis.

I say, truth trumps security! As Socrates said, we have nothing to lose by seeking the truth except our ignorance.

Excellent!

[Minimalist]

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

Excuse me but you fuckers spend a shitload of money trying to persuade people ( now that you can't threaten them with burning anymore) that your views are right.

My position is simply that you have no evidence to sustain your childish fairy tales.

If you find some, call me and we can discuss it.

[Skepsis]

The difficulty I have with the flowchart is the premise that God could have created people who were free to choose evil, yet also guarantee that they never would choose evil.

This.
Personally I don't feel it possible for the traditional monotheistic God to be capable of crating a universe with free will, due to the qualities most label them with. If you have a God who knows everything and is everywhere with at least enough power to create the universe, why is it that he is capable of not dictating the choices of every person ever to live? By creating a world with beings capable of choice he is necessarily creating a world where he predetermined the choices of everyone.

Another thought on free will is that, if there is no free will in heaven and hell, then why is it so sacred in this life? So we can choose whether or not we feel justified in our belief in a God? Seems too much like Russian Roulette. Still, this disregards the idea that God is incapable of creating a world with choice given his traditional attributes.
Some theists... well, most theists believe that freedom of choice is still intact in heaven and hell. But if heaven is perfect, then why doesn't free will screw the equation?

[spockrates]

Well, I would not care what happens if I knew I'd have no soul to which something would happen! Do you have a reason why I should believe no soul will survive me?

All we have is that there's no good reason to think you do. Which puts the idea of soul survival on the same footing as the notion that when you die your life is transcribed onto a positronic brain at the galactic core and the resulting robot is used for forced labor by a cabal of alien cultists who worship the black hole at the center of the galaxy.

Is it possible you are making an inference from ignorance (not calling you ignorant, of course! it's a term given for an informal fallacy). That is, you are saying you can think of no good reason one has a soul that survives death, so that means there must be no good reason there is a soul that survives death. You have not proved there is no good reason; you've only demonstrated that if there is one, you are currently unaware of it. Now, Jupitor has posted in this discussion thread that he has a good reason for believing the soul survives death, for he has spoken to souls who have so survived. It could be he is deceived, but he is making an inference from experience, rather than from ignorance. Again, I'm not saying you are ignorant. Just saying you have not given a reason why a person has no soul.

I'm not claiming; I'm asking. The purpose of the discussion thread is to answer the question: What are some good reasons I should consider when trying to make up my mind whether I should become an atheist? (BTW, love the superhero costume!)

Thanks for the compliment, I aim to please. I think I gave you a fairly lengthy and detailed answer, but you're focusing on points of disagreement rather than how what I said fails to answer your question. It's going to be hard to answer your question in a way that relates to you if you won't tell us what it is that you believe. Do you really expect us to guess, given the thousands of denominations of Christianity run through every individual's filter? Tell us why you believe and if your reason has a flaw, we'll tell you what it is. If knowing that your reason is flawed won't make a difference to you, there's really no point in anyone making any further effort regarding this matter.

OK. I used to be Evangelical, have considered becoming Catholic, but am investigating atheism before I make up my mind. Does that help?

But isn't my finding out why others decided not to become, or remain Christian doing the work myself?

It depends on whether you're really thinking about our answers or just yanking our chains.

How have I not sincerely considered any of your answers?

The difference of opinion you and I seem to have is over what the best method to figuring out the truth is. I think having discussions with those who think differently than I do is the best method.

What people who think differently than you do have to say seems to slide right off you, though you're polite enough about it. It's only a good way to figure out what the truth is if you do the work of thinking through what you're hearing and figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

How have I not worked through what you are saying and figured out how to weed out any factual errors and logical errors from your opinions?

You mean, most here are agnostics, not atheists?

Most here are agnostics AND atheists. 'I'm an agnostic' is a good answer to a question like 'Do you think it's possible to know for sure if a God or gods really exist?' 'I'm an atheist' is a good answer to a question like 'Do you believe a God or gods really exist?'. Those are not good answers if you switch the questions though. 'Agnosticism' is about what you don't know, 'atheism' is about what you don't believe. Lots of people (maybe most) are agnostic theists, who admit they can't know but believe anyway. I was one for over a decade.

I thought an agnostic is one who admits she does not know, but an atheist is certain she knows there is no God. The agnostic position seems less dogmatic to me, personally.

I think you are misunderstanding. I did not start this discussion thread to prove something I believe; I started the discussion to ask why others don't believe. Can you appreciate the significant difference?

Can you appreciate why the conversation will be much more productive if you tell us why you DO believe? We have no way of knowing if our answers are relatable to you without knowing that. As I said, I gave a fairly detailed account of how I came not to believe and you gave no sign of comprehending that I had danced to your tune. I'm working like a horse here, and bupkis.

There are a lot of things I believe with varying degrees of certainty, or uncertainty. Please be more specific. Do you want to know why I believe a soul might survive the body that dies? or why some being could exist who is the source of all wisdom? or why the Bible is is possibly divine rather than human in origin? or why Christianity is not necessarily illogical? or why love is likely impossible without the freedom to hate? or why it is not irrational to believe that God is Triune? I've expressed my views on all of these, but don't mind doing so, again. Please ask away!

I say, truth trumps security! As Socrates said, we have nothing to lose by seeking the truth except our ignorance.

Excellent!

[Mystic]

A reason aside from the Bible contradictions, is that the issue of hell being promised to disbelievers paints a very ugly and distasteful image of God in my opinion. I can't come to terms with a god punishing people simply for disbelieving in a religion. If he can be merciful to believers, he can merciful to all It's also not the case that all believers are better people then all non-believers, rather some believers are better then some non-believers, and some non-believers are better then some believers.....I find the God of Christianity not be to too great.

Another reason is that trinity is a logically flawed and dishonest. People want to Worship Jesus, only knowing doing so would imply more then one God, so they have two contradictory notions.

1) Jesus is not the father, but both are worthy of worship.
2) Jesus and the Father are both one entity, along with the holy spirit.

In the latter, it would be God is the son of himself and the father of himself? Does that make sense?

In the former, it would imply there is more then one God....

It seems to me Christianity is a dishonest + vicious towards disbelievers.

[spockrates]

The difficulty I have with the flowchart is the premise that God could have created people who were free to choose evil, yet also guarantee that they never would choose evil.

This.
Personally I don't feel it possible for the traditional monotheistic God to be capable of crating a universe with free will, due to the qualities most label them with. If you have a God who knows everything and is everywhere with at least enough power to create the universe, why is it that he is capable of not dictating the choices of every person ever to live? By creating a world with beings capable of choice he is necessarily creating a world where he predetermined the choices of everyone.

Another thought on free will is that, if there is no free will in heaven and hell, then why is it so sacred in this life? So we can choose whether or not we feel justified in our belief in a God? Seems too much like Russian Roulette. Still, this disregards the idea that God is incapable of creating a world with choice given his traditional attributes.
Some theists... well, most theists believe that freedom of choice is still intact in heaven and hell. But if heaven is perfect, then why doesn't free will screw the equation?

Not sure I understand. Why is it necessary that God predetermines every choice you, or I will make (if such a God were to exist, I mean). Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Please clarify.

---

A reason aside from the Bible contradictions, is that the issue of hell being promised to disbelievers paints a very ugly and distasteful image of God in my opinion. I can't come to terms with a god punishing people simply for disbelieving in a religion. If he can be merciful to believers, he can merciful to all It's also not the case that all believers are better people then all non-believers, rather some believers are better then some non-believers, and some non-believers are better then some believers.....I find the God of Christianity not be to too great.

Another reason is that trinity is a logically flawed and dishonest. People want to Worship Jesus, only knowing doing so would imply more then one God, so they have two contradictory notions.

1) Jesus is not the father, but both are worthy of worship.
2) Jesus and the Father are both one entity, along with the holy spirit.

In the latter, it would be God is the son of himself and the father of himself? Does that make sense?

In the former, it would imply there is more then one God....

It seems to me Christianity is a dishonest + vicious towards disbelievers.

Agreed. Ugly vision, indeed! (and also contrary to what scripture seems to teach about the justice and mercy of God). One reason why I've considered becoming Catholic. In their view, those who don't believe likely receive Purgatory, rather than hell, where they will one day exit to heaven.

Regarding the Trinity, I've found it to be strange, but not illogical, when properly understood. The doctrine is not that God is only one God and also three Gods, nor that God is only one person and also three persons, but that God is one God in three persons. Some Christians say that God is one what in three whos. You and I have one person to our one being (or essence), but God (Trinitarians say) has three persons to his one being (or essence). Not irrational, but certainly odd.

(BTW, I've been meaning to ask if you are into video games, given your avatar.)

[MountOlympus]

Spock, you're just hounding people, are you not? You understand much of the contradictory nature of the bible and most religions, yet you keep telling everyone that you will just "switch" denominations to suit your "soul" needs.

What do you hope to accomplish by making this thread into one giant circular argument? Are you writing off people's statements, just for the hell (fun) of it?

[spockrates]

Spock, you're just hounding people, are you not? You understand much of the contradictory nature of the bible and most religions, yet you keep telling everyone that you will just "switch" denominations to suit your "soul" needs.

What do you hope to accomplish by making this thread into one giant circular argument? Are you writing off people's statements, just for the hell (fun) of it?

Hey, MO. Not sure how I'm hounding people, unless you mean that asking questions about the answers given is hounding. I hope to figure out what reasons there are for becoming atheist and why, or why not those reasons are compelling. Most people give me the what, but when I ask them why the why is true, they often walk away. But I find that when some stay, both they and I learn a lot about why they believe. It's a Socratic thing. I use the same method when I speak with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, friends, family, foes and others.