Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

For the vast majority of my time at PCF I have been a Christian. However throughout previous months I have 'seen the light' so to speak and have given up my belief. I can say to this only that I am greatly excited about my new views and outlook, one of reason and of human conscience.

Why did I change my mind? Mainly I've been convinced of agnostic metaphysics, namely, that God cannot be proven to exist, and that there is nothing in this universe, no reasoned observations or logical thinking, which makes his existence more likely than not.

For instance, those who are religiously inclined offer the following conundrum: Everything that exists has been brought about by something previously existing, so necessarily something must have existed before the universe for there to have been a 'first cause'. Lacking any explanation, as science undoubtedly does, so must we allegedly deduce a divine or ,necessary' being. This is of course fallacious if all we are attempting to achieve is a rationalization of the irrational. It must be the height of contradiction to conclude the idea the universe has no starting cause - 'it just happened' - as being so unbelievable that one must instead turn to the idea of an all-seeing, omnipotent, omniscient being, existing outside time. If God needs no creator, then why does the universe? Both ideas being incredible are thus equally credible, and as such, reason cannot point us toward a Deity.

Specifically I also reject Christianity (especially my own Catholic faith) as a religion. If we read the Bible (especially the Old Testament) we must conclude that God is extremely violent and cruel, jealous, murderous, impetuous, peevish, possessive, threatening, irrational and misogynistic. If so I see no moral benefit in believing in such a God - a God that allows suffering, and indeed, causes it (Is God willing to prevent evil but unable? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both willing and able? Then why does evil exist? Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?)

What of Christ? He was a profoundly moral and just man, and we can learn much from his teachings. But he appears to have glaring faults: he believed in Hell for those who dont follow Him: "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come". Eternal hell-fire for evil men is morally questionable, but eternal hell-fire for people who fail to believe, even if they are decent and just people? No man may claim to be humane and hold this view, and Christ held it most sincerely.

These criticisms of course necessarily presume Christianity can be taken seriously. In many ways even this is missing the point. What kind of religion begins by the debauching of a virgin by a ghost, and ends with an incoherent self-sacrifice (Jesus, who is God, died to appease the sins of humanity, to God - i.e. - Himself). There are my conclusions in a nutshell.

A final point - You know what really irritates me most? Those who say "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you". Such breathtaking arrogance and unquestioned superiority is precisely why I flip the bird to all those who waste their sunday mornings praising non-existent supranational beings, reciting childish fairy stories, following anachronistic and irrational superstitious creeds and conventions, and pretending barbaric and scientifically ridiculous texts are special and unchallengeable

[Dr. Wojtyla]

Good a reason as any.

[toddytodd]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: For the vast majority of my time at PCF I have been a Christian. However throughout previous months I have 'seen the light' so to speak and have given up my belief. I can say to this only that I am greatly excited about my new views and outlook, one of reason and of human conscience.

Why did I change my mind? Mainly I've been convinced of agnostic metaphysics, namely, that God cannot be proven to exist, and that there is nothing in this universe, no reasoned observations or logical thinking, which makes his existence more likely than not.

For instance, those who are religiously inclined offer the following conundrum: Everything that exists has been brought about by something previously existing, so necessarily something must have existed before the universe for there to have been a 'first cause'. Lacking any explanation, as science undoubtedly does, so must we allegedly deduce a divine or ,necessary' being. This is of course fallacious if all we are attempting to achieve is a rationalization of the irrational. It must be the height of contradiction to conclude the idea the universe has no starting cause - 'it just happened' - as being so unbelievable that one must instead turn to the idea of an all-seeing, omnipotent, omniscient being, existing outside time. If God needs no creator, then why does the universe? Both ideas being incredible are thus equally credible, and as such, reason cannot point us toward a Deity.

Specifically I also reject Christianity (especially my own Catholic faith) as a religion. If we read the Bible (especially the Old Testament) we must conclude that God is extremely violent and cruel, jealous, murderous, impetuous, peevish, possessive, threatening, irrational and misogynistic. If so I see no moral benefit in believing in such a God - a God that allows suffering, and indeed, causes it (Is God willing to prevent evil but unable? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both willing and able? Then why does evil exist? Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?)

What of Christ? He was a profoundly moral and just man, and we can learn much from his teachings. But he appears to have glaring faults: he believed in Hell for those who dont follow Him: "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come". Eternal hell-fire for evil men is morally questionable, but eternal hell-fire for people who fail to believe, even if they are decent and just people? No man may claim to be humane and hold this view, and Christ held it most sincerely.

These criticisms of course necessarily presume Christianity can be taken seriously. In many ways even this is missing the point. What kind of religion begins by the debauching of a virgin by a ghost, and ends with an incoherent self-sacrifice (Jesus, who is God, died to appease the sins of humanity, to God - i.e. - Himself). There are my conclusions in a nutshell.

A final point - You know what really irritates me most? Those who say "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you". Such breathtaking arrogance and unquestioned superiority is precisely why I flip the bird to all those who waste their sunday mornings praising non-existent supranational beings, reciting childish fairy stories, following anachronistic and irrational superstitious creeds and conventions, and pretending barbaric and scientifically ridiculous texts are special and unchallengeable

I can relate, personally. However, even in light of the fact that odds are God doesn't exist, I still choose to believe in God - a supreme being, creator of the Earth and the life on it. (However, I don't believe there is anyone on the planet, past or present, that truly understands what it means to be a Christian, nor practices it correctly and justly.) Perhaps it just makes me feel a little better thinking that there is someone (something) out there pulling for me a little bit.
I think that what we each believe is good for each of us and no one should be able to legitimately belittle it in any way.

I wish you well on your new path.

[feederband]

toddytodd wrote: Perhaps it just makes me feel a little better thinking that there is someone (something) out there pulling for me a little bit.



I'm pulling for you man... 8:)

[mojo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: For the vast majority of my time at PCF I have been a Christian. However throughout previous months I have 'seen the light' so to speak and have given up my belief. I can say to this only that I am greatly excited about my new views and outlook, one of reason and of human conscience.

Why did I change my mind? Mainly I've been convinced of agnostic metaphysics, namely, that God cannot be proven to exist, and that there is nothing in this universe, no reasoned observations or logical thinking, which makes his existence more likely than not.

At one time in my life I believed as you believe right now. I had wild doubts running through my head and confronted many of the same questions you are posing right now.

What I found is that some of the most gratifying things within our existence are completely without reason. Is there reason whilst a child have the urge to jump and play. Is their reason for the complexity and depth of human emotions.

I am not going to harshly criticize reason alone. But reason alone will drive you into insanity. Through a whole bunch of thinking and (later on) a whole bunch of praying I found that Atheism fails to explain many things. The most important of which is Unconditional Love.

Quote: For instance, those who are religiously inclined offer the following conundrum: Everything that exists has been brought about by something previously existing, so necessarily something must have existed before the universe for there to have been a 'first cause'. Lacking any explanation, as science undoubtedly does, so must we allegedly deduce a divine or ,necessary' being. This is of course fallacious if all we are attempting to achieve is a rationalization of the irrational. It must be the height of contradiction to conclude the idea the universe has no starting cause - 'it just happened' - as being so unbelievable that one must instead turn to the idea of an all-seeing, omnipotent, omniscient being, existing outside time. If God needs no creator, then why does the universe? Both ideas being incredible are thus equally credible, and as such, reason cannot point us toward a Deity.

If for instance you were to assume that the universe always was. Then is it equally likely for existence to simply not exist.

God does not need a creator because he is the source. But the worldly universe needs a cause for the simple reason that certain laws always exist. For example gravity. How can a law always exist. It is a construct and therefore bound by a creator. If what you propose is true then the universe would be creating laws and matter all the time. Because certainly if the universe in a random and disordered chaos decides to create more matter than why dont we have more matter. I certainly have not seen rocks popping up into existence. I know for absolute fact that Gravity has not decided to switch directions.

But I really don't care to think in this manner. There is something cold and robotic about it. There is no room for romance, hope or adventure. Those are the principles that really drive our existence. If you accept atheism the logical deduction is always materialism. Because if the world is born from the world where else can the world end up but the world. Me and my brothers of faith choose to live by principles that are not in this world. In doing that the world becomes elevated.

Quote: Specifically I also reject Christianity (especially my own Catholic faith) as a religion. If we read the Bible (especially the Old Testament) we must conclude that God is extremely violent and cruel, jealous, murderous, impetuous, peevish, possessive, threatening, irrational and misogynistic. If so I see no moral benefit in believing in such a God - a God that allows suffering, and indeed, causes it (Is God willing to prevent evil but unable? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both willing and able? Then why does evil exist? Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?)

I can answer all your questions through the book of Job. The important point in the the Old Testament is that it is written in poetry. In fact the book of Job was originally an epic poem (even though it lost a lot of its ryhme in translation). Poetry wishes uses metaphor to show deeper truths. The main point in the old testament was that God honors covenant even when we are not keeping up our end of the deal.

The book of Job says that humans cannot see the whole of the picture so therefore they should not judge God's decisions. Our sin makes a corrupted relationship between humans and God. God does everything in his power to stop its spread just shy of taking away our free will. What you need to understand is that the big battle that is taking place is over the human soul not the human body. That is the thing that is really worth saving. Because the human soul is eternal.

For being an entirely reasonable man I know you would respect the profoundness of your choice. As Gilbert on this forum has stated before. God wishes to save each of us not all of us. It is your choice and my choice that dictates our eteranl future.

Quote: What of Christ? He was a profoundly moral and just man, and we can learn much from his teachings. But he appears to have glaring faults: he believed in Hell for those who dont follow Him: "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come". Eternal hell-fire for evil men is morally questionable, but eternal hell-fire for people who fail to believe, even if they are decent and just people? No man may claim to be humane and hold this view, and Christ held it most sincerely.

Our salvation is more than just our beliefs. Jesus called mankind into action. Jesus told us that every poor person we neglected, we were neglecting him. For every person we hurt, we hurt him. It is true we need Christ to be saved. It is his life, death and resurrection that has given us choice and direction.

Quote: These criticisms of course necessarily presume Christianity can be taken seriously. In many ways even this is missing the point. What kind of religion begins by the debauching of a virgin by a ghost, and ends with an incoherent self-sacrifice (Jesus, who is God, died to appease the sins of humanity, to God - i.e. - Himself). There are my conclusions in a nutshell.

In rising again he proved to the world jsut how weak we are. Through his life he showed us how to live our lives. Through his death he showed us why our world is so messed up. Through his resurrection we were brought forth new life. It was through his resurrection that he taught us how wrong we were about everything because he was God.

Quote: A final point - You know what really irritates me most? Those who say "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you". Such breathtaking arrogance and unquestioned superiority is precisely why I flip the bird to all those who waste their sunday mornings praising non-existent supranational beings, reciting childish fairy stories, following anachronistic and irrational superstitious creeds and conventions, and pretending barbaric and scientifically ridiculous texts are special and unchallengeable

I can see why you would be irritated in such a statement (even though in my view it doesn't take away from its truth). I apologize for any Christian that tried to assert superiority over you. Christianity teaches tremendous respect and humility to people they argue with.

[thehollowman]

feederband wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps it just makes me feel a little better thinking that there is someone (something) out there pulling for me a little bit.



I'm pulling for you man... 8:)

Does that make you god feederband?

[ChuckBerry]

Were you a devout, practicing Catholic before your "conversion"? The way you structure your argument sounds like it was coped and pasted from an atheist website, with no acknowledgement of a deep commitment that ran the other way before you "un"saw the light.

If you were serious about your faith before, did you attempt to resolve these doubts with a priest, or someone else well versed in the faith that you could talk with? There are answers to all of the questions that you pose above; did you seriously look for them?

[Blinky]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: For the vast majority of my time at PCF I have been a Christian. However throughout previous months I have 'seen the light' so to speak and have given up my belief. I can say to this only that I am greatly excited about my new views and outlook, one of reason and of human conscience.

Why did I change my mind? Mainly I've been convinced of agnostic metaphysics, namely, that God cannot be proven to exist, and that there is nothing in this universe, no reasoned observations or logical thinking, which makes his existence more likely than not.

For instance, those who are religiously inclined offer the following conundrum: Everything that exists has been brought about by something previously existing, so necessarily something must have existed before the universe for there to have been a 'first cause'. Lacking any explanation, as science undoubtedly does, so must we allegedly deduce a divine or ,necessary' being. This is of course fallacious if all we are attempting to achieve is a rationalization of the irrational. It must be the height of contradiction to conclude the idea the universe has no starting cause - 'it just happened' - as being so unbelievable that one must instead turn to the idea of an all-seeing, omnipotent, omniscient being, existing outside time. If God needs no creator, then why does the universe? Both ideas being incredible are thus equally credible, and as such, reason cannot point us toward a Deity.

Specifically I also reject Christianity (especially my own Catholic faith) as a religion. If we read the Bible (especially the Old Testament) we must conclude that God is extremely violent and cruel, jealous, murderous, impetuous, peevish, possessive, threatening, irrational and misogynistic. If so I see no moral benefit in believing in such a God - a God that allows suffering, and indeed, causes it (Is God willing to prevent evil but unable? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both willing and able? Then why does evil exist? Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?)

What of Christ? He was a profoundly moral and just man, and we can learn much from his teachings. But he appears to have glaring faults: he believed in Hell for those who dont follow Him: "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come". Eternal hell-fire for evil men is morally questionable, but eternal hell-fire for people who fail to believe, even if they are decent and just people? No man may claim to be humane and hold this view, and Christ held it most sincerely.

These criticisms of course necessarily presume Christianity can be taken seriously. In many ways even this is missing the point. What kind of religion begins by the debauching of a virgin by a ghost, and ends with an incoherent self-sacrifice (Jesus, who is God, died to appease the sins of humanity, to God - i.e. - Himself). There are my conclusions in a nutshell.

A final point - You know what really irritates me most? Those who say "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you". Such breathtaking arrogance and unquestioned superiority is precisely why I flip the bird to all those who waste their sunday mornings praising non-existent supranational beings, reciting childish fairy stories, following anachronistic and irrational superstitious creeds and conventions, and pretending barbaric and scientifically ridiculous texts are special and unchallengeable

Well done. I'm sure you will find, as I have, your new life to be satisfying. You can be a good person without reference to ghosts, miracles, "tests" set up by god, and other assorted nonsense.
Worship the good inside yourself, you don't need god. Nobody does.

[THEXRATED]

Lord Harqreaves, I know we often do not see eye to eye in political discussions, but I could have as well written your post for most parts (exception your personal information of course), as I never really considered myself a Christian even when still a member of lutherian sect that is dominant here in Finland. Apart from that, I have gone through very similar process and determined that what best describes my disbelief in regards to gods is best explained as being Agnostic Atheist.

[Lord Hargreaves]

mojo wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: For the vast majority of my time at PCF I have been a Christian. However throughout previous months I have 'seen the light' so to speak and have given up my belief. I can say to this only that I am greatly excited about my new views and outlook, one of reason and of human conscience.

Why did I change my mind? Mainly I've been convinced of agnostic metaphysics, namely, that God cannot be proven to exist, and that there is nothing in this universe, no reasoned observations or logical thinking, which makes his existence more likely than not.

At one time in my life I believed as you believe right now. I had wild doubts running through my head and confronted many of the same questions you are posing right now.

That I can respect, and thank you for replying mojo

mojo wrote: What I found is that some of the most gratifying things within our existence are completely without reason. Is there reason whilst a child have the urge to jump and play. Is their reason for the complexity and depth of human emotions.

I am not going to harshly criticize reason alone. But reason alone will drive you into insanity. Through a whole bunch of thinking and (later on) a whole bunch of praying I found that Atheism fails to explain many things. The most important of which is Unconditional Love.

I think a distinction can be made between explaination of something - using primarily science - and an explanation of what makes things appealing (human emotions and unconditional love).

For instance, here at university in Aberystwyth I live directly by the sea. It is highly enjoyable to sit out on the beach at night, look up at the stars, and watch the remarkable ray of light it shines across the water. It is extremely beautiful and inspiring, and when i am there there is no where else i'd rather be. That is not to say of course, that the sun and the sea cannot be explained by "cold" science. The sun is a burning ball of gas. The water is made up of the compound of 2 hydrogen particles to 1 oxygen particle. This does nothing to negate its pleasure to my senses. Likewise with human emoticons or love.

mojo wrote: Quote: For instance, those who are religiously inclined offer the following conundrum: Everything that exists has been brought about by something previously existing, so necessarily something must have existed before the universe for there to have been a 'first cause'. Lacking any explanation, as science undoubtedly does, so must we allegedly deduce a divine or ,necessary' being. This is of course fallacious if all we are attempting to achieve is a rationalization of the irrational. It must be the height of contradiction to conclude the idea the universe has no starting cause - 'it just happened' - as being so unbelievable that one must instead turn to the idea of an all-seeing, omnipotent, omniscient being, existing outside time. If God needs no creator, then why does the universe? Both ideas being incredible are thus equally credible, and as such, reason cannot point us toward a Deity.

If for instance you were to assume that the universe always was. Then is it equally likely for existence to simply not exist.

I dont see how that follows?

mojo wrote: God does not need a creator because he is the source.

Then who created God? We are both subject to the paradox of the "levatating turtle", yet I end the chain one step before you (that the universe, for all intents and purposes created itself, whereas God has always existed). In asking the agnostic who says the universe came from nothing, and for no reason, you are asking "what does your turtle stand on when it supports the world?". Its a fair point. What I am saying is that your answer, that my turtle is standing upon yours, does absolutely nothing to resolve the paradox.

mojo wrote: But the worldly universe needs a cause for the simple reason that certain laws always exist. For example gravity. How can a law always exist. It is a construct and therefore bound by a creator. If what you propose is true then the universe would be creating laws and matter all the time. Because certainly if the universe in a random and disordered chaos decides to create more matter than why dont we have more matter. I certainly have not seen rocks popping up into existence. I know for absolute fact that Gravity has not decided to switch directions.

Indeed, it is a great question to ask why our laws are precisely what they are. I cannot give you a definitive response. All I can say is that we do not know. There are a few points: why did God make gravity just so? If it was merely for his pleasure, then we have an equally random set of events it seems to me. If it was to fulfill a purpose, then the purpose must be outside of God, and thus the point of God leaves us

mojo wrote: But I really don't care to think in this manner. There is something cold and robotic about it. There is no room for romance, hope or adventure. Those are the principles that really drive our existence. If you accept atheism the logical deduction is always materialism. Because if the world is born from the world where else can the world end up but the world. Me and my brothers of faith choose to live by principles that are not in this world. In doing that the world becomes elevated.

As to the previous point, it need not be a contradiction to have a meaningful live and not belief in God.

mojo wrote: Quote: Specifically I also reject Christianity (especially my own Catholic faith) as a religion. If we read the Bible (especially the Old Testament) we must conclude that God is extremely violent and cruel, jealous, murderous, impetuous, peevish, possessive, threatening, irrational and misogynistic. If so I see no moral benefit in believing in such a God - a God that allows suffering, and indeed, causes it (Is God willing to prevent evil but unable? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both willing and able? Then why does evil exist? Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?)

I can answer all your questions through the book of Job. The important point in the the Old Testament is that it is written in poetry. In fact the book of Job was originally an epic poem (even though it lost a lot of its ryhme in translation).

You won't get argument from me that the Bible has literary merit

mojo wrote: Poetry wishes uses metaphor to show deeper truths. The main point in the old testament was that God honors covenant even when we are not keeping up our end of the deal.

Thats precisely like saying "God has a plan for you even if you dont know it" which is similar in tone to "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you" which i have already said i have problems with. God cannot keep a covenant if He does not exist, and i cannot fail to keep my end of the deal when no deal has been made. All this theorising needs faith to make sense - so one must already be a christian for its theology to become coherent. You see the problem here

mojo wrote: The book of Job says that humans cannot see the whole of the picture so therefore they should not judge God's decisions.

That is something that repels me. We must live as we understand. As we would not condemn a dog that does not wear clothing, eat at fast food restaurants and use public toilets, so neither do i think a loving God would condemn a human for being "human" and living to his own reason.

mojo wrote: Our sin makes a corrupted relationship between humans and God. God does everything in his power to stop its spread just shy of taking away our free will. What you need to understand is that the big battle that is taking place is over the human soul not the human body. That is the thing that is really worth saving. Because the human soul is eternal.

What sin? What soul? What battle? 'Original Sin' is a monstrous idea (i have somehow offended God merely by my being concieved) and the soul a silly one.

mojo wrote: For being an entirely reasonable man I know you would respect the profoundness of your choice. As Gilbert on this forum has stated before. God wishes to save each of us not all of us. It is your choice and my choice that dictates our eteranl future.

Im not sure what this means, perhaps a distinction without a difference? I will check out Gilbert's posts.

mojo wrote: Quote: What of Christ? He was a profoundly moral and just man, and we can learn much from his teachings. But he appears to have glaring faults: he believed in Hell for those who dont follow Him: "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come". Eternal hell-fire for evil men is morally questionable, but eternal hell-fire for people who fail to believe, even if they are decent and just people? No man may claim to be humane and hold this view, and Christ held it most sincerely.

Our salvation is more than just our beliefs. Jesus called mankind into action. Jesus told us that every poor person we neglected, we were neglecting him. For every person we hurt, we hurt him.

These are excellent lessons if we replace "Christ" with "humanity". I offend myself and all of society when i neglect just one member.

mojo wrote:
Quote: These criticisms of course necessarily presume Christianity can be taken seriously. In many ways even this is missing the point. What kind of religion begins by the debauching of a virgin by a ghost, and ends with an incoherent self-sacrifice (Jesus, who is God, died to appease the sins of humanity, to God - i.e. - Himself). There are my conclusions in a nutshell.

In rising again he proved to the world jsut how weak we are. Through his life he showed us how to live our lives. Through his death he showed us why our world is so messed up. Through his resurrection we were brought forth new life. It was through his resurrection that he taught us how wrong we were about everything because he was God.

I am aware of the benefits mankind is meant to recieve with Christ's resurrection. This does nothing to address my arguments however. Catholics believe Jesus is God and not just part, so in essence Jesus dies to appease himself.

Likewise:

God exists outside time, so why condemn humanity through adam and eve when he must have been aware he would later offer us chance of redemption by sending his Son to die for those sins and forgive them? Is God changing his mind, and is that a godly trait?

Even if this were not true, why not forgive us anyway? why is Christ's sacrifice necessary?

why are you and i accountable for the sins of others living thousands of years ago in the garden of eden? sins i personally commit at least makes sense, 'original sin' does not.

why did he even condemn adan and eve at all? He must have known they would ignore him, for He himself created them?

why was eating from the "tree of knowledge" a bad thing? is knowledge not good? and why would adam and eve be accountable for betraying God before they eat from the tree, that is to say, before they knew both right and wrong, and from this developing a free will? How could they know what they were doing - what the consequences of there actions would be - when they lived in earthly bliss?

mojo wrote: Quote: A final point - You know what really irritates me most? Those who say "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you". Such breathtaking arrogance and unquestioned superiority is precisely why I flip the bird to all those who waste their sunday mornings praising non-existent supranational beings, reciting childish fairy stories, following anachronistic and irrational superstitious creeds and conventions, and pretending barbaric and scientifically ridiculous texts are special and unchallengeable

I can see why you would be irritated in such a statement (even though in my view it doesn't take away from its truth). I apologize for any Christian that tried to assert superiority over you. Christianity teaches tremendous respect and humility to people they argue with.

I have kept in touch with many of my Christian friends. They are incredibly nice people and live, in their interactions and respect for others, as all decent people would like. Thats not the issue. Instead it is not the behaviour of followers but the creed they follow which is irritating and superioritive. How is the atheist/agnostic viewed by Christianty? One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence

[Lord Hargreaves]

CCD wrote: Were you a devout, practicing Catholic before your "conversion"? The way you structure your argument sounds like it was coped and pasted from an atheist website, with no acknowledgement of a deep commitment that ran the other way before you "un"saw the light.

A good criticism, in fact i think you have me on that. I suppose I must not have been that serious, or at least, a lot less serious than i first thought

CCD wrote: If you were serious about your faith before, did you attempt to resolve these doubts with a priest, or someone else well versed in the faith that you could talk with?

I did not, which i probably should have, but only - note - as a well taught theologian; throughout my practicing of catholism i never once believed the priest could have a divine authority to know what is correct more than I (nor that only men would be ordained, that view has always annoyed me)

CCD wrote: There are answers to all of the questions that you pose above; did you seriously look for them?

I read Betrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" (amongst may other things) and a response from a highly regarded catholic priest. Russell's essay was thought provoking and enlightening, offering new perspectives. The response was little more than a personal attack. I have yet to hear any "answers" and would be grateful if you have them

[John]

Quote: One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence


You're just relying on you evidence from a core group of people who have a different philosophy of what they have presumed to be truth.

If you assume that God doesn't exist from the start...you're not going to find evidence. Especially when any actual evidence is discredited due to the presumed fact that God does not exist.

I'm not saying that you assumed from this from the start. But the influence of people that do can wear on you to the point that you basically accept their philosophy for truth.


Quote: Catholics believe Jesus is God and not just part, so in essence Jesus dies to appease himself.

In a way. But it's also to show us what kind of effect our sin has. As a Christian we look at Christ and His sacrifice and see the direct result that God feels when we sin. It was a visual demonstration to show us how horrible sin is.

We are to see that God took on the sin...that He doesn't hate us...and that He loves us very much. That we don't have to hide from Him....that He will forgive us...we just need to be real.

I personally believe that refusing to believe in God is a way of trying to hide from Him by convincing yourself that God doesn't exist. That we all feel the shame of sin in our lives and know deep down that this upsets God. It's easier to hide from God than to face up to our sin nature and admit that we are helpless. Who wants to do that? Nobody does.

[John]

Quote: read Betrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" (amongst may other things) and a response from a highly regarded catholic priest. Russell's essay was thought provoking and enlightening, offering new perspectives. The response was little more than a personal attack. I have yet to hear any "answers" and would be grateful if you have them



Have you read this?

[Lord Hargreaves]

John wrote: Quote: One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence


You're just relying on you evidence from a core group of people who have a different philosophy of what they have presumed to be truth.

If you assume that God doesn't exist from the start...you're not going to find evidence. Especially when any actual evidence is discredited due to the presumed fact that God does not exist.

I'm not saying that you assumed from this from the start. But the influence of people that do can wear on you to the point that you basically accept their philosophy for truth.

So you would agree that it is best to start with an open mind? That is what i have done (in theory though obviously not in practice given i was a catholic) and after thinking we can conclude we are no better from than where we started, because we are dealing with questions which we will never know the answer to.

As such it is logical that you start agnostic, and end agnostic.

On this: One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence i maintain that is precisely the Christian position. In rejecting Christ I will go to Hell, and any decent Christian who loves me would resent that, and so 'pity' me.

John wrote: Quote: Catholics believe Jesus is God and not just part, so in essence Jesus dies to appease himself.

In a way.

By this you mean "yes". I acknowledge its much less problematic for protestantism, but the issue still remains.

John wrote: But it's also to show us what kind of effect our sin has. As a Christian we look at Christ and His sacrifice and see the direct result that God feels when we sin. It was a visual demonstration to show us how horrible sin is.

I'm not sure sin really exists.

It also seems the purpose of the crucifixion seems to shift depending on the issue. Either it was to forgive sins, then it was a 'real event', or it was a demonstration to make us understand how terrible sin is. Both? In that case, if not a direct contradiction, the existence of one reason seems to greatly diminish the impact of the other

John wrote: We are to see that God took on the sin...that He doesn't hate us...and that He loves us very much. That we don't have to hide from Him....that He will forgive us...we just need to be real.

If God loves us all, and is omnipotent, why does hell exist?

John wrote: I personally believe that refusing to believe in God is a way of trying to hide from Him by convincing yourself that God doesn't exist. That we all feel the shame of sin in our lives and know deep down that this upsets God. It's easier to hide from God than to face up to our sin nature and admit that we are helpless. Who wants to do that? Nobody does.

this has an element of truth, at least for some who are atheistic or agnostic not through reasoned analysis but just by not caring about the issue, and not wanted to be hampered in their hobbies and activities. For people who have thought about it long and hard and reached a conclusion that God probably (though not certainly) does not exist, this is not the case.

John wrote: Have you read this?

nope, but i will look into it

[Otacon]

I've been considering similar things. One of the questions i've been running through my head more and more is why did God destroy entire cities over a few sinners? My preacher shouts all the time about how God will destroy America like he did Sodom and Gomorrah, but i'm sure those cities had small children who had never had the chance to sin, but yet he killed them? Isn't that considered murder? Also, there is not a chance in Hell that Jesus didn't sin atleast once. You can't tell me that at some point he didn't look at a woman in lust or cursed his parents under his breath when told to do something. I haven't abandoned Christianity yet, but i'm really considering it.

[StrangerWitCandy]

I was a die hard Christian before I became agnostic as well. Agnosticism is the most honest belief IMO, because it doesn't assume or proclaim to know anything that can't be proven. It is the epitome of open-mindedness. I have rejected religion and found that spiritualilty and philosophy fit me much better.

[John]

Quote: So you would agree that it is best to start with an open mind? That is what i have done (in theory though obviously not in practice given i was a catholic) and after thinking we can conclude we are no better from than where we started, because we are dealing with questions which we will never know the answer to.

As such it is logical that you start agnostic, and end agnostic.

On this: One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence i maintain that is precisely the Christian position. In rejecting Christ I will go to Hell, and any decent Christian who loves me would resent that, and so 'pity' me.

Of course. Who wants to believe a lie? If I'm wrong...it is in my best interest to turn from what I'm wrong about as soon as possible.

I can't say that I agree that it is logical that you start agnostic, and end agnostic. That is to take the stance that in order to know something...you have to know everything about the subject. that isn't true. If someone states that there isn't any gold in China. In order to prove that there isn't; every nook and cranny would have to be searched. I have to know everything to take that stance. But that isn't true in order to prove that there IS gold in china. All that is needed is to see the yellow metal shining in the mouth of one Chinaman walking along the Great Wall.

Basically, what I'm saying is that overwhelming knowledge of something isn't needed to prove it exists.

Given the amount of people who are convinced that they have experienced some sort of evidence that has caused them to alter the way they live their lives; is evidence in itself that SOMETHING is going on. To deny that is to deny a BUNCH of evidence. And really the only thing we can really be sure of is self (I and everything around you could possible be a figment of your imagination). What better evidence is there than a type that is experienced within your core being?

[toddytodd]

Otacon wrote: I've been considering similar things. One of the questions i've been running through my head more and more is why did God destroy entire cities over a few sinners? My preacher shouts all the time about how God will destroy America like he did Sodom and Gomorrah, but i'm sure those cities had small children who had never had the chance to sin, but yet he killed them? Isn't that considered murder? Also, there is not a chance in Hell that Jesus didn't sin atleast once. You can't tell me that at some point he didn't look at a woman in lust or cursed his parents under his breath when told to do something. I haven't abandoned Christianity yet, but i'm really considering it.

Quote: My preacher shouts all the time about how God will destroy America like he did Sodom and Gomorrah, but i'm sure those cities had small children who had never had the chance to sin, but yet he killed them? The god of the Old Testament seems to be a lot different than the god of the New Testament. I doubt God actually destroyed cities because of a few (or even many) sinners. More likely than not, the city was destroyed for some other reason (war, naturally occurring phenomenon, etc) and the destruction was attributed to God.
Quote: You can't tell me that at some point he didn't look at a woman in lust or cursed his parents under his breath when told to do something. I don't think there is any mention of this in the current bible, however, there isn't much about the child of Jesus from birth to about the age of twelve.
Though the Gnostic's aren't part of the current bible, there are stories told about Jesus being a mischievous little kid. One story tells that Jesus was playing with a friend on a roof and accidentally pushed the kid off. Of course the kid died. When Joseph went to scold Jesus, Jesus get irritated and resurrected the dead child laying in the dirt. Because it is a Gnostic book's story, this book (I think it was the Book of Adam and Eve, but can't recall right now) isn't included in modern day christainity.

[John]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: I was a die hard Christian before I became agnostic as well. Agnosticism is the most honest belief IMO, because it doesn't assume or proclaim to know anything that can't be proven. It is the epitome of open-mindedness. I have rejected religion and found that spiritualilty and philosophy fit me much better.

Christianity IS a rejection of religion. It's sad that so many people who think they are raised Christian...have really been fooled into just another form of earning favor with God (Religion). This is NOT what Christianity is about. People just have a natural tendency to practice religion. Even sports fans are practicing a type of religion.

[John]

Quote: I'm not sure sin really exists.

It also seems the purpose of the crucifixion seems to shift depending on the issue. Either it was to forgive sins, then it was a 'real event', or it was a demonstration to make us understand how terrible sin is. Both? In that case, if not a direct contradiction, the existence of one reason seems to greatly diminish the impact of the other

Why would it diminish the impact each other? What point is forgiveness if the one forgiven doesn't understand WHY they need to be forgiven in the first place?

Isn't the point of forgiving to bring the two parties back into relationship?