Is Christianiy the best religion?

Originally posted by Andromeda719

Have I studied other religions? Yes I have and I continue to do so. I am secure enough in my belief that I keep an open mind about other beliefs.

I see this claim made quite often, but never validated. Exactly what have you "studied" and how rigorously did you do so? Can you tell me the six schools of Vedic philosophy without doing a search? Can you name a branch of Islam other than Sunni or Shi'a? These questions are rhetorical, but you see where I'm going? To this point you have not demonstrated that you have done the reading you claim to have done. This leads the reader to believe that your claim is specious.

.How about this: instead of me telling you, why don't you research it for yourself?

Because that defeats the whole point of having a discussion (and is also a convenient cop out). How about this: you explain your research and the arguments and evidence derived from it and then we explain why your arguments and evidence are illogical. As nauseum.

Do we really need this forum anymore? I've been gone for over a year and the same tired old arguments are still here but with considerably less eloquence.

There's a lot of assuming going on here. People are assuming that I haven't done enough research, that I have been selective in my research, and that I don't know a thing about what I'm talking about.

As even evidenced by my definition of religion and previous posts, I take my religion very seriously. If I take religion very seriously, isn't it given that I would conclusively research them, and then make my decision?

Also, I understand people's arguments that because I started out with Christianity, I kept it. However, I don't think the case of just "sticking with what you're doing" applies here. Just because I started out with Christianity doesn't mean that it's wrong, and if I study religions seriously and with an open mind, and just happen to discover that Christianity is true, then should I be blamed for it?

Also, I had a reason for telling you to research it. It seems to me you are assuming that if I had researched enough, I would come to the conclusion that Christianity is false. However, maybe I should assume YOU haven't studied enough. People are telling me I haven't studied enough, not telling me actual facts about other religions, so can you blame me for doing the same?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lack of work required may make your religion 'stand appart' from others but it doesnt stop it being a religion (or faith). Can you find any dictionary that defines the word 'religion' as requiring work? I believe that some religions do not neccessarily incorporate the concept of God and so they also cannot "require work of some kind in order to gain the approbation of God".

I'll go one better. Can you find one system of belief that does not require work in order to obtain the stated goal?

Originally posted by Penguin
Yes, under my definition atheism would be considered a religion. Notice how I had no requirement of a god in my definition. Like I said, this it what I mean when I say religion, not what the actual definition is. We're dealing with ideas, not words, and religion is just a word to express this idea.

So if atheism is included, then I would suggest it is ...[text shortened]... Truth says to me that the most likely answer is that none of them are.

--- Penguin[/b]

So if atheism is included, then I would suggest it is the most unique of all since it posits no supernatural forces. Therefore atheism is most likely to be correct.
A problem exists within your equation. In stripping the natural world of its need for a Creator, you divest in the creation similar powers or attributes, thus rendering nature supernatural.

It's hardly surprising then that you continued to believe in your default faith.
As everyone is born with a God concept, it is hardly surprising that most people stick with the same. According to your formula, conclusions are only valid if change occurs. Silly.

But you will always study them with the (correct in my view) preconception...
Of course. Only the anti-theist is capable of objectivity. Only he has nothing at stake. Blech.

Do we really need this forum anymore? I've been gone for over a year and the same tired old arguments are still here but with considerably less eloquence.

Well no, I've only been here for a few weeks and I've already seen some points made multiple times, along with the same responses. I'd be interested to know whether anyone's opinion actually has been changed as a result of these discussions.

I think we all just us the forums to hear the opposition's arguments and hone our responses. As far as I've seen, the oppositions arguments tend to be hand-waving and avoidance but that may be just my impressions.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Do we really need this forum anymore? I've been gone for over a year and the same tired old arguments are still here but with considerably less eloquence.

Well no, I've only been here for a few weeks and I've already seen some points made multiple times, along with the same responses. I'd be interested to know whether anyone's opinion actually has ...[text shortened]... tend to be hand-waving and avoidance but that may be just my impressions.

--- Penguin[/b]

I'd say that impression is spot-on. Especially the hand-waving, ala Nemesio's avatar.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As everyone is born with a God concept, it is hardly surprising that most people stick with the same. According to your formula, conclusions are only valid if change occurs. Silly.

This is absolutely false. NO ONE is born with a god concept. All god concepts are learned concepts. People are taught to believe in god. If a child could be raised without ever coming into contact with another human, he would have absolutely no concept of god at all.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'll go one better. Can you find one system of belief that does not require work in order to obtain the stated goal?

You claimed that Orthodox Christianity fit the bill. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by Andromeda719
Have I studied other religions? Yes I have and I continue to do so. I am secure enough in my belief that I keep an open mind about other beliefs.

How could you possibly 'keep and open mind' when you are 'secure in your own belief'. You are contradicting yourself. After you have read the whole Qur'an and prayed fervently to Allah for salvation then we are getting closer to 'open mindedness'.

What evidence is there? This really isn't the thread for it, and it's a broad topic, so I'll just touch on it, but what evidence would you expect to find for a historical event such as Christ's life? There are historical documents (both Christian and secular) from primary sources, archaelogical sites, etc.
There are no secular documents confirming the life of Jesus. The only reports are those reporting the existence of Christians and what they believe.
Also, none of the books in the Bible are from 'primary sources'.
Get your facts straight before you make conclusions based on the 'evidence'. There is considerably more evidence that Mohammed existed.

A problem exists within your equation. In stripping the natural world of its need for a Creator, you divest in the creation similar powers or attributes, thus rendering nature supernatural.

No, it doesn't have to be supernatural at all. The fact that we don't at present know how something happened does not imply at all that it happened supernaturally.

As everyone is born with a God concept, it is hardly surprising that most people stick with the same. According to your formula, conclusions are only valid if change occurs. Silly.

As twhitehead says, we are not born with a God concept, we are taught it. Even if we were born with the concept, it would not mean that a god actually exists. I agree with you that an initial conclusion could be the right one, I just think that seeing as the initial conclusion tends to be socially rather than objectively installed, it is more likely to be wrong.

Of course. Only the anti-theist is capable of objectivity. Only he has nothing at stake. Blech.

Fair enough, atheists can be as stubbern as theists. However the difference is that the theist claims everyone else is wrong and he is right whereas the atheist just claims that everyone else is wrong (I'm talking about weak rather than strong atheism here). Other atheists may wish to expand / amend this statement.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]How about this: instead of me telling you, why don't you research it for yourself? Have YOU done enough research into the matter?

I think if I were to do that, I should research the other major religions first since Christianity is the one I currently know most about (and I freely admit that my knowledge there is patchy). But the simple fact that ther ...[text shortened]... trong atheism here). Other atheists may wish to expand / amend this statement.

--- Penguin

Claiming that "Everyone else is wrong" just permeates an aura of laziness and apathy along with an extreme inability to make difficult decisions.

While several thoughts come to mind about this topic, the concept of atheism, as you put it is encompassed by human qualities and characteristics I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I would never strive or be proud of those characteristics...even if you rationalize it by feeling that you are at least "less ignorant" than others.

Another appropriate quote here is that you can't force a blind man to see. So I'm sensing very loaded questions when I see "Show me the evidence". That is a bunch of nonsense. Your mind is well made up long before you asked the question. If you are challenging someone to checkmate you or if you are placing a stipulation that nothing but a pure checkmate will convince you, then save your breath. One day, you will die and you will find out for yourself if you have been checkmated, stalemated, or checkmated someone else. Enjoy your life, quit wasting your brain cells on issues you have already made up your mind about and patiently await your answer.

Thirdly, Christianity isn't a religion, it is a personal relationship with God. God speaks to Christians and this "evidence" everybody demands is mostly based on this personal communication which one receives. Are they mentally deranged? I'm sure the clan of the lazy and apathetic will easily reach that conclusion...but I simply point to the fruits of their labor. If a tree grows fruit, then eat it and quit denouncing the tree.

I think the true source of Christian criticism is there are many trees in this world and most of them don't produce any fruit...so in a way, the trees are denouncing themselves.

Lastly, in regards to this abstract term of "studying"...most folks with an open mind knew since the 3rd grade that Islamic and Christian roots are from the same God, not different ones. The Christian bible specifically points this out. And the reason for the split is at the core due to a very hostile act between two people. The Jewish man scorned the woman and child who were later the seed of Mohammed and the Christian/Jewish old testament specifically said that God blessed them. Why would a God do such a thing? Well, the Jewish man was wrong for doing what he did. To think of all the bloodshed that happened in history since then is unfathomable. It is what it is.

Logic will lead you astray and a total belief in only your logic is a religion of itself. You are worshipping only yourself and your own abilities and if you are anything like me, worshipping yourself is the most foolish thing mankind could ever do.

Was there evolution? I don't know. Was there creation? I don't know. Was there a creator that used evolution as his method for creation? Holy cow, shut that man up, it is preposterous for him to suggest such a thing. My point here is that everyone seems to want to take an extreme stance not because the evidence suggests it, but simply because human nature is to enjoy conflict. It's a funny thing because that very nature is the reason religion exists. This whole thread is like a self proving entity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'll go one better. Can you find one system of belief that does not require work in order to obtain the stated goal?

Yes, Christianity.

Oh, wait...it requires you to modify your behaviour based on what some supposed historical figure was purported to have said, suspend rational observation regarding the nature of existence by believing humans can transcend death, pray, tithe, go to church, and proselytize to heathen unbelievers. Some sects of this cult also go as far as to demand one handle poisonous reptiles, nail themselves to crosses in a gruesome public display, or partake in bizarre rituals like transsubstantiating wafers and wine and eating your erstwhile saviour.

Nope, I guess you were right...for a change.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As everyone is born with a God concept, it is hardly surprising that most people stick with the same.

Well, I guess you might as well follow up your "right" with an "unbelievably wrong". Good show, old boy.

Originally posted by rwingett
This is absolutely false. NO ONE is born with a god concept. All god concepts are learned concepts. People are taught to believe in god. If a child could be raised without ever coming into contact with another human, he would have absolutely no concept of god at all.

People are taught to believe in god.
Hate to break the news, but yours truly was just one of those people that contradict your assertion. The fact that there are hundreds of differing religions is a smoking gun. Even lending credence to your position requires a teacher at some point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You claimed that Orthodox Christianity fit the bill. Make up your mind.

That's exactly my position: orthodox Christianity is the only belief system that requires no work on the part of its adherants to gain the approbation of God. No other belief system can make the same claim.