Is Christianiy the best religion?

Originally posted by Penguin
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. ...[text shortened]... trong atheism here). Other atheists may wish to expand / amend this statement.

--- Penguin[/b]

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.
Actually, that is the definition of supernatural. Our observations of nature working since recorded history is the sum total of our understanding of the natural world. If something were to happen outside the bounds of the laws and rules of the natural world, it--- by necessity--- is supernatural. That is exactly what is required in making matter eternal.

As twhitehead says, we are not born with a God concept, we are taught it.
It was rwingett, not twitehead, but I've responded to that assertion above.

Even if we were born with the concept, it would not mean that a god actually exists.
That just makes no sense.

I just think that seeing as the initial conclusion tends to be socially rather than objectively installed, it is more likely to be wrong.
Society is merely the eons-old pattern of behavior that man follows when in groups. While I agree that society can be wrong with some of its positions, we cannot overlook the fact that society is made up of individuals. Even assuming these traits that society adopts are wrong, they are consistently evident for a reason.

However the difference is that the theist claims everyone else is wrong [b]and he is right whereas the atheist just claims that everyone else is wrong (I'm talking about weak rather than strong atheism here).[/b]
Eh? So what does the atheist say about his own position? "I'm not like everyone else?" This evidence for why I am asserting in the evolution thread that atheism always ends in absurdity.

Originally posted by schmoo
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 pro ...[text shortened]... the reason religion exists. This whole thread is like a self proving entity.

I have no conflicts with this post. Nicely put.

Originally posted by David C
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 ...[text shortened]... fers and wine and eating your erstwhile saviour.

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

it requires you to modify your behaviour based on what some supposed historical figure was purported to have said
No behavior modification necessary. Belief on the Lord Jesus Christ, however, is required. Not belief as in 'I believe in Santa Claus,' but belief as in 'I take His work on my behalf as though I did the work.'

suspend rational observation regarding the nature of existence by believing humans can transcend death
Secondary (non-priority) belief, not relevant toward salvation (the stated beginning goal of Christianity).

pray, tithe, go to church, and proselytize to heathen unbelievers
No, no, no and no. While these are all legitmate works, none of these are part of salvation, and they are not part of the spiritual life (exception: prayer done in the proscribed fashion).

Some sects of this cult also go as far as to demand...
Hardly orthodox and as such, totally unsupportable by Scripture.

I said: 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.

and you replied Actually, that is the definition of supernatural. Our observations of nature working since recorded history is the sum total of our understanding of the natural world. If something were to happen outside the bounds of the laws and rules of the natural world, it--- by necessity--- is supernatural. That is exactly what is required in making matter eternal.

so you think that only the things we understand are natural. So the earthquakes and volcanoes used to be supernatural because we thought they were and are now natural because we understand how and why they occur? No. They were always natural phenomena. So I'll repeat: The fact that we don't at present know how something happened does not imply at all that it happened supernaturally.

I said Even if we were born with the concept, it would not mean that a god actually exists.
and you replied That just makes no sense.

I'm saying that just because people believe something does not make it true, whether we are born with the belief or not. Millions of Hindus believe in multiple gods but that does not mean that multiple gods exists. Millions of Christians believe in one god but that does not mean that one god exists.

Society is merely the eons-old pattern of behavior that man follows when in groups. While I agree that society can be wrong with some of its positions, we cannot overlook the fact that society is made up of individuals. Even assuming these traits that society adopts are wrong, they are consistently evident for a reason.

Individuals are just as likely to be wrong as the mass. And various religious forms have come in and out of favour over the centuries. Some societies used to believe there were dieties in the rocks, sea, clouds and stars. Vary few people believe that any more. Even now, different societies believe in different gods. There's nothing to imply that any particular religion is more right than any other yet they all claim the truth.

You said. Eh? So what does the atheist say about his own position? "I'm not like everyone else?" This evidence for why I am asserting in the evolution thread that atheism always ends in absurdity.

The athiest says that there is no evidence for any god at all. However he (or at least myself) does not claim absolute truth. This may make me agnostic rather than strong athiest but, to paraphrase Dawkins, my agnosticism towards God is equivelant to my agnosticism toward fairies.

--- Penguin.

Yes, Xianity is the best religion . . .


FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!

wah - ha - ha - ha - ha - ha - ha!

Originally posted by Penguin
I said: 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.

and you replied Actually, that is the definition of supernatural. Our observations of nature working since recorded history is the sum total of our understanding of the natural w ...[text shortened]... agnosticism towards God is equivelant to my agnosticism toward fairies.

--- Penguin.

so you think that only the things we understand are natural.
Good point. However, you are suspending judgment regarding how nature might have behaved, in contradiction to how nature is behaving now. Regardless of that future revelation of nature's unknown past, compared to current understanding that behavior is supernatural. It assumes a suspension of the laws of physics (or, worse, that what were laws before are laws no longer) which no evidence points toward.

I'm saying that just because people believe something does not make it true, whether we are born with the belief or not.
Every society that has ever existed since man first recorded his history has exhibited some cognizance of deity. Now replace the word 'deity' with the word 'language,' and tell me how such a dynamic could be anything less than innate, thus necessary.

Millions of Hindus believe in multiple gods but that does not mean that multiple gods exists. Millions of Christians believe in one god but that does not mean that one god exists.
As I am sure you have deduced, this is not being asserted.

to paraphrase Dawkins, my agnosticism towards God is equivelant to my agnosticism toward fairies.
If all you aspire to is intelligent company, then you have succeeded in this regard alone. Dawkins' intelligence in some aspects is unquestioned. On this glaring issue, he has missed the boat entirely.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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.[/b]

You could only contradict his assertion by example if you believed in God yet never met anyone.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good point. However, you are suspending judgment regarding how nature might have behaved, in contradiction to how nature is behaving now. Regardless of that future revelation of nature's unknown past, compared to current understanding that behavior is supernatural. It assumes a suspension of the laws of physics (or, worse, that what were laws before are laws no longer) which no evidence points toward.

To me supernatural implies the existence of something outside the universe and not within the laws of physics. Whether we understand it or not is not what makes it supernatural.
I cant quite understand what you are saying in your post but it appears you are saying that the supernatural is a requirement of the universe but you give no explanation as to why you think that is.
I disagree, and think that there is no requirement for the supernatural at all. You mention evidence, so provide some of it.

Good point. However, you are suspending judgment regarding how nature might have behaved, in contradiction to how nature is behaving now. Regardless of that future revelation of nature's unknown past, compared to current understanding that behavior is supernatural. It assumes a suspension of the laws of physics (or, worse, that what were laws before are laws no longer) which no evidence points toward.

Sorry? I think you'll have to rephrase this. It sounds to me like you are saying that there is no evidence that the physical universe behaves as current scientific theories suggest. Is that right?

Every society that has ever existed since man first recorded his history has exhibited some cognizance of deity. Now replace the word 'deity' with the word 'language,' and tell me how such a dynamic could be anything less than innate, thus necessary.

Well clearly for man to record his history, he must have some form to language with with to record it. But those language are all artificial, invented by man. Religion is also artificial, invented by man. God is an artifical concept, invented by man.

me: ]Millions of Hindus believe in multiple gods but that does not mean that multiple gods exists. Millions of Christians believe in one god but that does not mean that one god exists.
you: As I am sure you have deduced, this is not being asserted.

We're trying to assert why someone should logically believe in one religion as opposed to any other religion (or non at all). You have suggested that the existance through the ages of a religious concept in mankind implies some fundamental truth of religion. I say it only implies an inbuilt curiosity and desire in mankind for control of his environment.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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.[/b]

Absolute rubbish. Your 'god concept' may have been drubbed into your thick skull when you were very young, but you were NOT born with it.

There are, and have been, a plethora of religions throughout human history, but they all evolved from man's ignorance in relation to the larger universe. The very first human ancestors were necessarily atheists*. But as mankind evolved, he invented spirits and gods, and those concepts evolved along with him. Now they have become culturally re-inforced concepts. But they are all learned concepts and not innate ones. That is why people born to Muslim parents in Muslim countries grow up to be Muslims. Because they were taught to believe that way. If you stole that same child from his crib at birth and raised him in a staunch christian environment, he would grow up to be a christian. If my wife an I stole that same child and raised him in a cabin in the woods, he would grow up to be an atheist. If we never once mentioned god to him, he would grow up to be an implicit atheist, which is to say he would have no conception of god at all.


*implicit atheists. Which is to say that they had no conception of god at all.

Originally posted by rwingett
Absolute rubbish. Your 'god concept' may have been drubbed into your thick skull when you were very young, but you were NOT born with it.

There are, and have been, a plethora of religions throughout human history, but they all evolved from man's ignorance in relation to the larger universe. The very first human ancestors were necessarily atheists*. But ...[text shortened]... at all.


*implicit atheists. Which is to say that they had no conception of god at all.

There are, and have been, a plethora of religions throughout human history, but they all evolved from man's ignorance in relation to the larger universe.

Evidence?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]There are, and have been, a plethora of religions throughout human history, but they all evolved from man's ignorance in relation to the larger universe.

Evidence?[/b]

Evidence to the contrary?

Originally posted by rwingett
Evidence to the contrary?

You made a historical assertion; the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate it (say, through archaeological evidence).

Besides, the fact that a substantial number of scientists (particularly mathematicians) continue to be theists weakens your claim (though it does not refute it).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You made a historical assertion; the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate it (say, through archaeological evidence).

Besides, the fact that a substantial number of scientists (particularly mathematicians) continue to be theists weakens your claim (though it does not refute it).

I have little inclination to go through the laborious task of gathering evidence on your behalf, so I am stating my assertion as an a priori truth. You can take it or leave it.

I would point out, though, that scientists harbor a far greater percentage of atheists that the population at large. This strengthens my claim (though it does not prove it). People are able to rise above their social conditioning.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You made a historical assertion; the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate it (say, through archaeological evidence).

Besides, the fact that a substantial number of scientists (particularly mathematicians) continue to be theists weakens your claim (though it does not refute it).

I like the way that when a theist makes a historical assertion...the burden is upon us atheists to disprove it...whenever *we* make a historical assertion the burden is on us to prove it