What gives a religion the right to claim their fantasy is correct and the rest false?

[PETE_ROSE]

For the record, all organized religions are in error in their practice. Churches and religion have been corrupted. I suggest reading it for yourself.

[vorlon13]

The son of God can't write. Hahaha. As if the story couldn't get any more stupid.

Christ wouldn't have been a minimum wage carpenter if he had taken the scribe classes at DeVry University.  He would have been making big money !!!

Scripture would have noted that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not dragging up Pascal's Wager, but there are only two possibilities.  Either  God exists, or doesn't.  From my viewpoint atheism has a bleak outlook either way.

Well, if your hope and happiness is based on the idea that god exists, it;s kind of a "no shit" comment to say that you think atheism has a bleak outlook.  I;m an atheist, I don;t see anything blak about there not being any gods.  Life is still exactly what it is.  I take my hope and my happiness from the same place as ever..and, likely, from the same place as you despite any pious pronouncement you may care to utter.  

I feel I do not fit the mold many would like to dismiss Christians as.  Lack of education, place of birth, education, indoctrination, etc.  

You fit the mold pretty well, we have your comments here and elsewhere on boards as testament to that, lol.  

It is easy to discredit someone if they can be labeled negatively.   Many draw science like a pistol.  It appears to me that science and the Bible compliment each other.

  Well, it also appears to you to be that fairies created and maintain the earth, so.....?  

Most religions are easily discredited.  Christianity is not.  Yes there are some aspects that many do it agree with or endorse, but that doesn't not denote it is false.

"All the other guys are wrong for reasons that my beliefs are immune to".  Not likely.

[robvalue]

How is atheism bleak? This suggests that belief (or lack of) affects reality. And it's not a choice, it's a state of mind. It's not a philosophy one picks. And bleak? Why? There has to be some weird voyeur out there, or else stuff is really bad?

Clearly an atheist who is still alive can cope with life without needing imaginary characters.

Yeah, either gods exist, or they do not. A bit tricky to tell since they never get defined properly. But as seen in my "why should I care" thread, no one can even give me a good answer as to what difference it makes anyway. I feel it's often an emotional crutch some people are scared to throw aside.

[PETE_ROSE]

How is atheism bleak? This suggests that belief (or lack of) affects reality. And it's not a choice, it's a state of mind. It's not a philosophy one picks. And bleak? Why? There has to be some weird voyeur out there, or else stuff is really bad?

Clearly an atheist who is still alive can cope with life without needing imaginary characters.

Yeah, either gods exist, or they do not. A bit tricky to tell since they never get defined properly. But as seen in my "why should I care" thread, no one can even give me a good answer as to what difference it makes anyway. I feel it's often an emotional crutch some people are scared to throw aside.

I've never said belief if God is necessary for survival or happiness, and would not.

If a creator and God exists, my logic tells me that I should determine how that applies to me and what His expectation are. I have done that to my satisfaction. Again, from my standpoint, atheism is a rejection, refusal, or insert your own words, choice to follow yourself and your own prescribed path; which (from my view) places you at odds with God.
When we depart this life, if God does not exist, and all we have to look forward to is darkness, that appears bleak to me. If we depart this life and God does exist, and we are subject to His judgment, that too would appear bleak to me were I an athiest.

So often here people belittle Christians as dumb, emotionally needy, indoctrinated idiots. This reveals your animosity, contempt, and bias; and does little to further your argument.

[robvalue]

Okay, sorry I misunderstood. No, atheism is a lack of belief in deities. You are just making up extra things to try and make it sound unsavoury. Are you at odds with Santa Clause? And remember, some atheists are undecided. You're strawmaning all of them as strong atheists.

No, I'm not looking forward to "darkness", because I won't exist anymore. It won't be a problem. 1873 didn't bother me, because I wasn't alive. Same thing.

If you were an atheist thinking about god's judgement as real, you wouldn't be an atheist.

I don't care what God expects me to do. Why should I? Because if I don't do it I'll be punished with a worse afterlife? I'm not giving in to blackmail. I'll decide for myself how I should act. If he wants me to be any less moral than I am now, he can get lost. If he gave me a brain and then expects me not to use it, and just do what I'm told, it's his too bad. The times Christians have called me "immoral", it's been regarding something considered immoral within Christianity. Arguments haven't been given for why it's immoral outside of it. Well, they have, but they've been terrible.

[robvalue]

OK, here's a question for Pete. And any other theists who want to join in.

In what way are you acting differently when doing what God expects from ignoring what he expects? What do you do as extra, or refrain from doing?

Morality is incredibly important to me, and I'd like to know what about my behaviour is immoral, and why. I've achieved it all without needing any sort of religion or God. I just use reason to decide the best way to act, for the good of people and animals. If that's what God expects of me, then great. If he expects me to compromise that to make him happy, then no dice. I think he can look after himself.

[robvalue]

You know what Pete: it seems that you think atheists are aware God is real but choose to ignore it. I hope I'm wrong.

[purplepurpose]

OK, here's a question for Pete. And any other theists who want to join in.

In what way are you acting differently when doing what God expects from ignoring what he expects? What do you do as extra, or refrain from doing?

Morality is incredibly important to me, and I'd like to know what about my behaviour is immoral, and why. I've achieved it all without needing any sort of religion or God. I just use reason to decide the best way to act, for the good of people and animals. If that's what God expects of me, then great. If he expects me to compromise that to make him happy, then no dice. I think he can look after himself.

Serious believers go 'all in' on the idea of morale inspired by the bible. They force themselves in to the mood of ideal life - servitude to other people and respect/worshiping to the creator. Its awesome life, no doubt about that. But the catch is that its equally agonizing. Its so unpleasant, that carefree and relaxed attitude of non believers triggers believers.

[vorlon13]

For the early decades/centuries of Christianity, there wasn't a bible, manual, users guide or website to go check.  Word of mouth is how it spread, and congregations were on their own in regards as to how they were going to interpret the 5th, 10th or 20th hand version of the Christ story they heard in their specific village.  

This unsystem would guaranty all manner of HIDEOUS and VILE blasphemies and heresies to spread like cancer, and literally no 2 of the early churches would have been hewing to the same actual beliefs, and you're looking at total chaos dogma wise.  And since these early churches were populated with unavoidably illiterate congregations who left precious little of a paper trail, or even a simple count of how many of them there were, the true number of Christian denoms would be significantly larger, but even a guess about the actual number would just that, a wild guess.

 Though your assertion regarding diversity in the Early Christianity and non-existence of the canonical list of scriptures is evidently true, it stays unrelated to the argument I raised above.
It doesn't matter how diverse Early Christianity was, or what subjects they (dis)agreed upon. What matters is that almost every christian-based religion today accepts the Bible as divinely inspired book. That supposedly divinely inspired book tells us explicitly that the Church was established in the 1st century AD, as well as that its existence would prolong until the Second Coming (though this interpretation might not be perfectly true from ecclesiological standpoint of many traditional churches [e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.], it provides a necessary and sufficient basis for our discussion here, and is evident from the text itself). 

Therefore, the argument in a form of syllogism goes as follows:

P1: genuine Christian church exists from the 1st century AD (X) and will last until the Second Coming (Y).
P2: most of the 70,000+ christian-based religions don't exist from the 1st century AD.
C: most of the 70,000+ christian-based religions don't possess at least one conceptually necessary property (X) that genuine Christian church possesses according to the Bible.

Or, regarding the n existing churches in the 1st century AD:

P1: genuine Christian church exists from the 1st century AD (X) and will last until the Second Coming (Y).
P2: most of the n existing churches in the 1st century AD don't exist today.
C: most of the n existing churches in the 1st century don't possess one conceptually necessary property (Y) that genuine Christian church possesses according to the Bible. 


It goes without saying that this is no evidence of any sort, since the first premise is dependent upon one's willingness to accept the Bible as divinely inspired book. This argument works specifically under the assumption that one accepts said claim, either truly or for the purpose of debate. Thus, though my conclusions are by all means logically valid, they are not necessarily true.

God gave His Word for no other reason than it would be kept.

Don't overthink this.