Logical and moral contradictions in Christianity

[Tiffanys]

elvikun.. if you have trouble with reading comprehension I'm not gonna hold your hand, sorry.

Fool010 - It'd be in a few centuries from now most likely when such a thing would happen anyways. As for failing at manipulating things... artificial selection isn't exactly a complicated process. You just pick a male and a female with desirable traits and breed them together. Hell, that's been going on with animals long before we had complex sciences like Genetics. The only difference is not making people physically fuck someone against their will just because they have desirable traits we'd like to see bred - that's why it'd be done for them in a lab. Omitting the artificial womb, such a thing could already easily be possible today with a surrogate mother or even artificial insemination into the host mother (that has the desired genetic material). I think the way I said it though would be much less invasive.

As for raising children, I suppose parenting licenses would be fine... you'd just only give parenting licenses to good couples that wouldn't indoctrinate children and would raise them properly. It wouldn't even need to biologically be their child.

[elvikun]

@Tiff
I'm not very sure how parental rights and psychological abuse of children correlate with space travel, universe models, eugenics and futuristic utopia. I almost dare say they don't.

Anyway, what I was interested in was how do you want to teach agnosticism, which I'd say is by definition a conclusion you come to based on your experience and knowledge and how / why would you choose which religions would you present and which not.

[metro.]

As for raising children, I suppose parenting licenses would be fine... you'd just only give parenting licenses to good couples that wouldn't indoctrinate children and would raise them properly. It wouldn't even need to biologically be their child.

Sounds like Terra e...

[Fool010]

Anyway, what I was interested in was how do you want to teach agnosticism, which I'd say is by definition a conclusion you come to based on your experience and knowledge and how / why would you choose which religions would you present and which not.

I don't believe agnosticism can be taught, the best we can do is encourage critical thinking. After that we can present the existing choices, or encourage one to find an answer of his/her own. Knowledge can be acquired via education and the way to use said knowledge can be taught, but the maturity required to make proper use of it can't. It has to be acquired through personal experience. That's what I consider to be an imperative prerequisite to any choice we make in life.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

Anyway, what I was interested in was how do you want to teach agnosticism, which I'd say is by definition a conclusion you come to based on your experience and knowledge and how / why would you choose which religions would you present and which not.

I don't believe agnosticism can be taught, the best we can do is encourage critical thinking. After that we can present the existing choices, or encourage one to find an answer of his/her own. Knowledge can be acquired via education and the way to use said knowledge can be taught, but the maturity required to make proper use of it can't. It has to be acquired through personal experience. That's what I consider to be an imperative prerequisite to any choice we make in life.

Yes, and that's why I said I would start off by removing religion from school, except for from factual history. It's a little thing that should be kid of self-evident, but many countries actually have "religious education", which doesn't really educate about religions, it -teaches- one specific religion. Often the bias gets stronger and the majority religion gets into biology, chemistry, physics... You name it, it's there. I won't even mention mandatory prayer. That's not good influence and it dulls the capability to think.

I'm also having a strong feeling about rights, so while it bugs me, I don't believe any government should be able to say what can and cannot be told by you to your children. Only when it is an actual abuse.

[Fool010]

I'm also having a strong feeling about rights, so while it bugs me, I don't believe any government should be able to say what can and cannot be told by you to your children. Only when it is an actual abuse.

That's why critical thinking is imperative. You cannot completely shield children from being taught religious beliefs even when you remove propagan... ehm 'religious education' from school schedules, but at least we can do our best to prepare them to 'defend' themselves against indoctrination -of any kind-.
If one is to embrace atheism, agnosticism or any non religious set of beliefs, it has to be a personal choice and not something that occurs to you because you've been taught it's more logical, wiser, 'more enlightened' or less stupid than religion.

No one should ever dictate anyone what to believe, no matter what doctrine it is. No matter how well intentioned, indoctrination is not an option. Practise what you preach, so to speak.

I'd also like to add that religion has worked itself into the very fabric of western culture, and can't be removed overnight. Stringency won't do any good, it's going to be a lengthy and arduous process. Fighting dogma with an almost dogmatic counterposition is not what I consider to be the best choice. Ridiculing religion doesn't work that good, explaining why everything written in the Bible has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and definitely not literaly is more likely to wield better results. You don't start by headbutting someone you want to listen to you.
Maybe I'm just overly naive and overestimating mankind's ability to learn though, we have shown such a talent to ignore the obvious.

Note : has my point finally gotten through, or am I still considered to be trolling ?

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

I'm also having a strong feeling about rights, so while it bugs me, I don't believe any government should be able to say what can and cannot be told by you to your children. Only when it is an actual abuse.

That's why critical thinking is imperative. You cannot completely shield children from being taught religious beliefs even when you remove propagan... ehm 'religious education' from school schedules, but at least we can do our best to prepare them to 'defend' themselves against indoctrination -of any kind-.
If one is to embrace atheism, agnosticism or any non religious set of beliefs, it has to be a personal choice and not something you embrace because you've been taught it's more logical, wiser, 'more enlightened' or less stupid than religion.

No one should ever dictate anyone what to believe, no matter what doctrine it is. No matter how well intentioned, indoctrination is not an option. Practise what you preach, so to speak.

Note : has my point finally gotten through, or am I still considered to be trolling ?

To note: I never said you are a troll because of what you say, I said you were troll because I asked you a few questions I considered important three times and you ignored them three times. And I had no desire to continue that particular discussion without getting an answer.

A little intermezzo - While I am a rather strong atheist (well, you might've noticed), one thing I dislike more than batshit crazy theists are atheists and agnostics who don't know why they are atheists and agnostics. And if you train teach little kids to be atheist / agnostic that is exactly what you'll end up with. You can't learn to be one of those, that is something you have to think about alone, be it at 10, 15 or 40. Not even mentioning that "forcing" your kid into atheism isn't any better than forcing them into Christianity or what have you.

When you ask a Christian why are they Christian, you typically get "My parents are...". I really, really wouldn't like to see that in atheism. I would then have to become Bright (thank you Dan, that was really a great PR) or something else.

Schools should be there to teach kids to think, if their parents can't or don't want to do so, it's sad that sometimes they attempt to indoctrinate even more than parents, or alternatively fail at everything, using the "Memorize this page and then repeat it out loud. Congratz, you have just lerned sociology!" style.
So yeah, if we want the next generations to be somewhat better than us as a society, education would be a great place to start with.

[Fool010]

While I am a rather strong atheist (well, you might've noticed)

You mentioned quite early in the discussion having what you called 'a personal bias' iirc, so yes I think everyone noticed. As for myself, I consider myself neither agnostic, nor atheist, nor sceptic. Let's state I'm an unbeliever in the broadest sense, I don't reject religion nor do I embrace it. I simply don't need it. My position has absolutely nothing to do with any claim of rationality.
Maybe there's a label for 'people like me'  , if there's one I'd be genuinely interested to know. My system of belief probably borrows on all sides, but it formed itself as a result of my own experience. Funny thing is, many people turn to religion when faced with tough shit, but religion actually managed to turn me off with completely unacceptable answers to my questions.

As for why people turn to christianism or atheism, peer pressure and need for conformity are the most insidious means of indoctrination. At least open preaching, as obnoxious as it may be, is somehow an 'honest' approach.

I 'dodged' your questions because I considered that answering wouldn't have led to a more meaningful discussion -which we're having right now btw- but rather would've have kept us on the same old merry-go-round ride.
I haven't much to add to your last post, as I've could've written most of it myself. I finally got your point once you expressed it in a non-conflictual sense, so yeah. It's been a good discussion. Discussing about belief is much more interesting than discussing about religion.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

While I am a rather strong atheist (well, you might've noticed)

You mentioned quite early in the discussion having what you called 'a personal bias' iirc, so yes I think everyone noticed. As for myself, I consider myself neither agnostic, nor atheist, nor sceptic. Let's state I'm an unbeliever in the broadest sense, I don't reject religion nor do I embrace it. I simply don't need it. My position has absolutely nothing to do with any claim of rationality.
Maybe there's a label for 'people like me'  , if there's one I'd be genuinely interested to know. My system of belief probably borrows on all sides, but it formed itself as a result of my own experience. Funny thing is, many people turn to religion when faced with tough shit, but religion actually managed to turn me off with completely unacceptable answers to my questions.

As for why people turn to christianism or atheism, peer pressure and need for conformity are the most insidious means of indoctrination. At least open preaching, as obnoxious as it may be, is somehow an 'honest' approach.

I 'dodged' your questions because I considered that answering wouldn't have led to a more meaningful discussion -which we're having right now btw- but rather would've have kept us on the same old merry-go-round ride.
I haven't much to add to your last post, as I've could've written most of it myself. I finally got your point once you expressed it in a non-conflictual sense, so yeah. It's been a good discussion. Discussing about belief is much more interesting than discussing about religion.

I've mentioned that, because I am well aware of that and I was trying to be somewhat honest as to why I go for Christianity more than for anything else.
And I'm pretty sure there is label for people who are afraid to say they are atheists like you. And while you'll be unhappy, I'd say you really are atheist. Most "unsure" or "don't care" people are, it's just that the word itself carries certain stigma people don't want to have close to their name, so it gets refused. But the fact is, when the question is "Do you believe in any god?" and the answer is anything else than "Yes", you are in fact an atheist. It doesn't subscribe you to any idea, philosophy, group, it doesn't mean you have to argue and discuss it... It just means your answer was "Don't care.", "No.", "Who knows.", "I'm not sure.", etc. Being an atheist doesn't define you and says nothing about you, to get all profound, one could say everything but atheism defines you, it's a blank sheet. Definitions start once you add things like (a)gnosticism, skepticism and <insert anything>. As for you, it starts Agnostic Atheist -  but you'll have to fill the rest. Oh, and everything after the crossed part is serious, not a joke.

Peer pressure sure is powerful. Even if they have doubts, people will often keep them to themselves, rather than dealing with the reaction of community around them. More religious population -> Less people ever confessing doubt ->  So many fake religious people who will never find out everyone around them has the same doubts.
Have to love the Clergy project for example - organisation full of active priests and preachers who are atheists, yet too afraid to confess it openly.

But people turning to faith in hard moment is fascinating topic. Even somewhat personal-experience-ish for me. Dare we go there?

[megido-rev.M]

It would seem the dictionary's definition for 'atheism' doesn't quite fit well for a lack of belief. I guess that's what's hit most people.

[elvikun]

It would seem the dictionary's definition for 'atheism' doesn't quite fit well for a lack of belief. I guess that's what's hit most people.

Well the most clear definition of Atheist is actually a person who is a Christian. "Invented" by Romans. Obviously not the best one today. I have to poke you here tho, it's not lack of belief, it's lack of belief in gods, if anything or even better, belief no gods exist. This stupid typo about "lack of belief" caused the less -gifted- people to go all "How can you believe in nothing?!".
Interestingly enough, many modern dictionaries also present Agnostic, Pagan, Freethinker and Skeptic as a synonyms for Atheist. At which point you know it's going to get really weird.
At the end of the day, one liner is not enough to describe beliefs of an individual. And thus, the languages have bloomed.

[Fool010]

But people turning to faith in hard moment is fascinating topic. Even somewhat personal-experience-ish for me. Dare we go there?

Nah, the internet is the worst place ever for this. It's the last place I would discuss personal matters.

I called myself an unbeliever because every 'school' of non-belief has it's own codes and patterns, and I didn't reject the ones religion tried to impose on me to embrace any other. I may pick ideas I deem interesting or meaningful wherever they come from, but I'll never embrace a whole doctrine again.

As how to not believe in anything goes, it's pretty easy in fact. You just have to think for yourself, or maybe I'm just morally weary, disillusioned and disheartened.

[Nikkoru]

I'm an atheist because, even if I can contemplate the possibility of a god on some ineffable cosmic level, I am faithless. I've never had faith, I will never have faith. I am not an atheist because of some coherent rational argument, or because I have studied and understood the naturalistic explanations for life, the universe, and everything. Those are irrelevant to my lack of faith.

What it comes down to, I can't convince myself that such a thing exists on an emotional level. I don't know if my life has a purpose and I don't see that it matters, the world around me doesn't need meaning or function. Everything just is, and that's fine. This isn't an argument, cosmological or otherwise, it's how I intuit things.

[elvikun]

But people turning to faith in hard moment is fascinating topic. Even somewhat personal-experience-ish for me. Dare we go there?

Nah, the internet is the worst place ever for this. It's the last place I would discuss personal matters.

I called myself an unbeliever because every 'school' of non-belief has it's own codes and patterns, and I didn't reject the ones religion tried to impose on me to embrace any other. I may pick ideas I deem interesting or meaningful wherever they come from, but I'll never embrace a whole doctrine again.

As how to not believe in anything goes, it's pretty easy in fact. You just have to think for yourself, or maybe I'm just morally weary, disillusioned and disheartened.

When I say personal experience, I mean first-hand, not personal per se.

Don't take this as a poking, provocation or anything else that would start another -disagreement-, but what codes and patters does atheism have? Or better yet, what do you have in mind?

The story I've heard quite a few times from former Christians, who were often from rather fundamentalist families goes along the lines of: I've ran into debate / had a talk / read an article about my religion  and was unsure as to how should I answer / refute that > I began to study the Bible to better myself > Questions arose, but asking -religious leader person- those question led to even more questions or "Do not doubt!" > Began to look for the answers elsewhere > (time period) > Atheist.
It's hilarious how many people who study for priesthood actually end up leaving the seminary as atheists. Clearly, study (even of the Bible) and thinking is not very endorsed.

[Osmo]

EDIT: As a muslim I've read alot of dumb shit being posted in this thread about muslims, this shit never ceases.

Omniscience / Omnipotence

If we start with the idea of omnipotence – most Christians (at least those whom I've encountered) believe that their God is omnipotent, that is, that he's almighty. They also hold the belief that their God is a good and loving God. Furthermore – they all seem to dislike the fallen angel, Satan.

Now – God created the world, and everything in it, this would include Satan. If we for a while dismisses the idea of omniscience, God may not have known that Satan would betray him and turn into the one who we call Satan. But if God is omnipotent, he should be able to simply get rid of him, if he so chooses. Why doesn't he? I argue that the Christian God is evil and immoral.

Some people have simply responded with “he has a plan!” or “he will save us eventually!”. Is that an excuse? What kind of twisted and immoral process of thought is that? ”I'll let you have your fun, for now, Satan. But I'll deal with this later!”.

In the Islamic version, Satan asks God for respite, because he intends to try and show God he is superior than humans. God allows him this respite. So in the earthly domain we are being tested with Satan on our backs and heels. It all goes back to the notion of free will and what we choose to do with it. If Adam never ate from the tree then we wouldn't be on earth, it's all just a test.

The same could be applied to the world around us. Many people are suffering, starving, dying of diseases, natural disasters, war, mistreatment, etc. What does God do? Absolutely nothing. And the justification for that? You'll go to heaven! Or, most likely, to hell.

Again it's free will here. Illness is an expiation of sins. And death is freedom. Poverty is also a sense of spiritual freedom too.

So how about omniscience? The idea that God is all-knowing. According to this belief – God knew about Satan, God knew Adam and Eve would betray him, and last but not least, God knew that many people would suffer in this world that he created. So why did he create this world the way he did? Because either he simply doesn't exist, or he's plain evil.

I would argue that it is all because we've been given free will it's all for us to understand and learn from.

Christian doctrine also holds that humans have free will. If God is omniscient, we can't have free will, because then the world would be deterministic. If he knows what you're going to do, then it's clear you have no real choice in the matter.

Well God is omniscient, that encompasses free will too. The two realities can coincide with eachother.