Support NeoGAF

[Sh1ner]

Here's my proof for Christianity.

Human beings have being around for the good part of 200 000 years. Yet only in the last 2000 years have we witnessed any form of constant progressive growth, enlightenment and change.

Let me put a counter argument for a reason not to believe. As Hitchens put it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFQc2t6mSEs

 

[daviyoung]

It's not unusual for people to trade volleys when they're divided on issues they care about. Religion, like sports or politics, is a polarizing subject. Combative discussions can be productive as well as entertaining.

You're right, I never expected Casp0r to go full crazy in here.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

The GodlessGAF contingent has really been on a roll with these threads lately. I've not been one to speak up about my faith until recently, this past week in fact, because man, you guys know how to push someone's buttons.

In these days we are accused of attacking science because we want it to be scientific. Surely there is not any undue disrespect to our doctor in saying that he is our doctor, not our priest, or our wife, or ourself. It is not the business of the doctor to say that we must go to a watering-place; it is his affair to say that certain results of health will follow if we do go to a watering-place. After that, obviously, it is for us to judge. Physical science is like simple addition: it is either infallible or it is false. To mix science up with philosophy is only to produce a philosophy that has lost all its ideal value and a science that has lost all its practical value. I want my private physician to tell me whether this or that food will kill me. It is for my private philosopher to tell me whether I ought to be killed. I apologise for stating all these truisms. But the truth is, that I have just been reading a thick pamphlet written by a mass of highly intelligent men who seem never to have heard of any of these truisms in their lives.

Those who detest the harmless writer of this column are generally reduced (in their final ecstasy of anger) to calling him "brilliant;" which has long ago in our journalism become a mere expression of contempt. But I am afraid that even this disdainful phrase does me too much honour. I am more and more convinced that I suffer, not from a shiny or showy impertinence, but from a simplicity that verges upon imbecility. I think more and more that I must be very dull, and that everybody else in the modern world must be very clever. I have just been reading this important compilation, sent to me in the name of a number of men for whom I have a high respect, and called "New Theology and Applied Religion." And it is literally true that I have read through whole columns of the things without knowing what the people were talking about. Either they must be talking about some black and bestial religion in which they were brought up, and of which I never even heard, or else they must be talking about some blazing and blinding vision of God which they have found, which I have never found, and which by its very splendour confuses their logic and confounds their speech. But the best instance I can quote of the thing is in connection with this matter of the business of physical science on the earth, of which I have just spoken. The following words are written over the signature of a man whose intelligence I respect, and I cannot make head or tail of them—

"When modern science declared that the cosmic process knew nothing of a historical event corresponding to a Fall, but told, on the contrary, the story of an incessant rise in the scale of being, it was quite plain that the Pauline scheme—I mean the argumentative processes of Paul's scheme of salvation—had lost its very foundation; for was not that foundation the total depravity of the human race inherited from their first parents?.... But now there was no Fall; there was no total depravity, or imminent danger of endless doom; and, the basis gone, the superstructure followed."

It is written with earnestness and in excellent English; it must mean something. But what can it mean? How could physical science prove that man is not depraved? You do not cut a man open to find his sins. You do not boil him until he gives forth the unmistakable green fumes of depravity. How could physical science find any traces of a moral fall? What traces did the writer expect to find? Did he expect to find a fossil Eve with a fossil apple inside her? Did he suppose that the ages would have spared for him a complete skeleton of Adam attached to a slightly faded fig-leaf? The whole paragraph which I have quoted is simply a series of inconsequent sentences, all quite untrue in themselves and all quite irrelevant to each other. Science never said that there could have been no Fall. There might have been ten Falls, one on top of the other, and the thing would have been quite consistent with everything that we know from physical science. Humanity might have grown morally worse for millions of centuries, and the thing would in no way have contradicted the principle of Evolution. Men of science (not being raving lunatics) never said that there had been "an incessant rise in the scale of being;" for an incessant rise would mean a rise without any relapse or failure; and physical evolution is full of relapse and failure. There were certainly some physical Falls; there may have been any number of moral Falls. So that, as I have said, I am honestly bewildered as to the meaning of such passages as this, in which the advanced person writes that because geologists know nothing about the Fall, therefore any doctrine of depravity is untrue. Because science has not found something which obviously it could not find, therefore something entirely different—the psychological sense of evil—is untrue. You might sum up this writer's argument abruptly, but accurately, in some way like this—"We have not dug up the bones of the Archangel Gabriel, who presumably had none, therefore little boys, left to themselves, will not be selfish." To me it is all wild and whirling; as if a man said—"The plumber can find nothing wrong with our piano; so I suppose that my wife does love me."

I am not going to enter here into the real doctrine of original sin, or into that probably false version of it which the New Theology writer calls the doctrine of depravity. But whatever else the worst doctrine of depravity may have been, it was a product of spiritual conviction; it had nothing to do with remote physical origins. Men thought mankind wicked because they felt wicked themselves. If a man feels wicked, I cannot see why he should suddenly feel good because somebody tells him that his ancestors once had tails. Man's primary purity and innocence may have dropped off with his tail, for all anybody knows. The only thing we all know about that primary purity and innocence is that we have not got it. Nothing can be, in the strictest sense of the word, more comic than to set so shadowy a thing as the conjectures made by the vaguer anthropologists about primitive man against so solid a thing as the human sense of sin. By its nature the evidence of Eden is something that one cannot find. By its nature the evidence of sin is something that one cannot help finding.

Some statements I disagree with; others I do not understand. If a man says, "I think the human race would be better if it abstained totally from fermented liquor," I quite understand what he means, and how his view could be defended. If a man says, "I wish to abolish beer because I am a temperance man," his remark conveys no meaning to my mind. It is like saying, "I wish to abolish roads because I am a moderate walker." If a man says, "I am not a Trinitarian," I understand. But if he says (as a lady once said to me), "I believe in the Holy Ghost in a spiritual sense," I go away dazed. In what other sense could one believe in the Holy Ghost? And I am sorry to say that this pamphlet of progressive religious views is full of baffling observations of that kind. What can people mean when they say that science has disturbed their view of sin? What sort of view of sin can they have had before science disturbed it? Did they think that it was something to eat? When people say that science has shaken their faith in immortality, what do they mean? Did they think that immortality was a gas?

Of course the real truth is that science has introduced no new principle into the matter at all. A man can be a Christian to the end of the world, for the simple reason that a man could have been an Atheist from the beginning of it. The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything. But why our human lot is made any more hopeless because we know the names of all the worms who eat him, or the names of all the parts of him that they eat, is to a thoughtful mind somewhat difficult to discover. My chief objection to these semi-scientific revolutionists is that they are not at all revolutionary. They are the party of platitude. They do not shake religion: rather religion seems to shake them. They can only answer the great paradox by repeating the truism.

In my mind, religion and science can harmonize but not rhyme. How can one expect any one scientific field to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

I doubt I'll have much more to say on the topic, so save your zingers. I've been up a very long time and I likely won't get to your responses in the next dozen hours or so.

 

[LCfiner]

It's an extremely broad painting of them but essentially correct.

You cannot deny Islam is not fraught with violence and has resorted to death threats to keep their followers

You cannot deny Judaism is not shrinking, disliked and closed off.

You cannot deny Hinduism is not varied and unstructured.

I can deny all those things and I will call you a massively ignorant, hateful person for thinking them to be correct.

Anyway I am done with you as I know nothing I say or any evidence I may post will change your mind. But your thinking and prejudices make me sad.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The GodlessGAF contingent has really been on a roll with these threads lately. I've not been one to speak up about my faith until recently, this past week in fact, because man, you guys know how to push someone's buttons.





In my mind, religion and science can harmonize but not rhyme. How can one expect any one scientific field to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

I doubt I'll have much more to say on the topic, so save your zingers. I've been up a very long time and I likely won't get to your responses in the next dozen hours or so.

Well, at the very least science can create great theories why we evolved religion in the first place.

 

[RagnarokX]

so god is a capitalist?
I thought god was against rich people, why would he create an economic system that causes a greater gap between the rich and the poor?

why am I even entertaining your posts

The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

 

[Uchip]

How can one expect any one scientific field to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

how can you expect ancient myth to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

 

[FlyingTeacup]

The GodlessGAF contingent has really been on a roll with these threads lately. I've not been one to speak up about my faith until recently, this past week in fact, because man, you guys know how to push someone's buttons.





In my mind, religion and science can harmonize but not rhyme. How can one expect any one scientific field to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

I doubt I'll have much more to say on the topic, so save your zingers. I've been up a very long time and I likely won't get to your responses in the next dozen hours or so.

that's an appalling idea.

 

[Casp0r]

Never heard of the Age of Enlightenment, huh, Casp0r?

... and how lovely they lived within a society that (reluctantly, no one is perfect) accepted and promoted such thinking.

Again I'll say it. Christianity has known how to back out and let evolution continue.

I wonder how much of the United States is owned by China...

... and how much China is dependant on the United States. It's hardly a one way street.

Constant, progressive growth for 2,000 years.

See I'd happily state constant isn't exactly accurate, let's try extrapolating growth. However you then leave just this.

Casp0r you are in serious need of a history education, stop embarrassing yourself.

Do you even understand how to debate? Or is do you just post empty trash to inflate your throbbing ego.

Let me put a counter argument for a reason not to believe. As Hitchens put it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFQc2t6mSEs

Holy shit is someone actually trying to engage in an actual debate with me?

Oh but it's a youtube video ... 8 minutes long. Ergh. Since your the only one engaging in a proper debate, despite linking a youtube video of all things, I'll try to endure this video in order to give you a response. Seriously what happened to reading? Does everyone need to be read to nowadays? I could read that whole speech in 2 minutes, instead I have to listen to a 8 minute recording with colorful pictures ... nevermind I digress.

Hmmm as far as I've got it seems he's more concerned that God is meant to be a good guy ... when he's really not. Fact is I don't really believe in God. I believe in a communal moral code. Something that Jesus just happened to bring up.

 

[Log4Girlz]

... and how much China is dependant on the United States. It's hardly a one way street.

.

But shouldn't it be? Shouldn't most of the world be overtly christian by now? Why haven't the chinese converted in these last few thousand years? Why hasn't our success convinced them? Why did god allow them to have nuclear weapons? This does not allow us to ever attack their mainland.

 

[Mario]

... and all those huge civilizations from beyond have fallen.

Or transitioned in to other things, leaving their mark on what came after.

I guess it is your opinion that all Christian nations will endure for all time, and never fall?

Of course I mention the last 2000 years, Christianity is of course built upon the Judaism, so essentially 'Christianities god' was working through a couple more thousand years before that time too. Only things went a bit haywire and he sent his kid down to set things straight.

So you admit there was steady progress by humanity since before the advent of Christianity?

... and yet the Chinese are racked up with a communist, gated off government that abuses and controls it's people.

That may be the case, but by they are a hugely successful country.

Where do you think China would be today if they had not offered a dirt cheap labor to bloating, advanced and progressive Western countries.

They are where they are, one of the worlds superpowers.

Where is this Chinese superpower today? Oh wait ... it's built upon the capitalist nations of Christianity.

By that reasoning, the Christian nations are built on the oil of the nations of Islam.

China has the man power, the resources and the will to be miles ahead of us today. Yet they are stuck being our glorified slave workers, making our ipods and computers for knock of prices.

Yes, they have an increasing monopoly on a number of essential areas of manufacturing.


Who kick started that affair?

Japan had to change their whole countries basic system in order to compete with Western economies.

Indeed, they did. But they aren't Christian either.

Really ... catholic priest abuse of children? What has that got to do with any- ...

oh right ... fuck the church and everything its stood for because some priests fiddled some kids

uhu ...

Here is a little phrase which explains the entire workings of the world. You won't like it and perhaps openly refuse to acknowledge it. Hold tight.

Shit happens.

So, the abuse and violence perpetrated by Christianity is just "shit happens"? Necessary collateral damage in pursuit of the success of Christian nations?

You call out the violence and shortcomings of other religions, but under Christianity, "shit happens". Got it.

Bad people get into power, power makes people bad. Bad people do bad shit. Happy days.

Christian people too it seems. Christians within Christian nations aren't beyond the atrocities, violence, and hate speech you happily call out for other countries and religions.

Guess what though. Christianity endured these atrocities. It survived them, adapted and grew through them. Hence it's still here. Hence these countries didn't die out.

Non Christian countries are still here too.

More importantly. These atrocities openly went against the core idealisms of Christianity. So are we suprised we hit a dark ages? Are we surprised multiple atrocities were committed when we strayed from the line? I personally am not.

Against the core ideals of Christianity? Much was commited in the name of them.

No. No they are not.

Please we are not children here.

As much as you would prefer not to be associated, yes, they are by definition Christians.

Perhaps they, out of the thousands of different sects of Christianity, even have the most accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Judaism = 3000 years old

Christanity = 2000 years old

Judaism = 13.4 million

Christanity = 2200 million

Please explain how Judaism has in anyway been more successful than Christianity. Their core concept failed.

I never made the claim they were more successful. I suggested their lack of success doesn't support your argument.

Oh I'm sorry ... did I forget about the Greek superpower?

You forgot about their contributions to math, science and philosophy it seems.

For the last time. Christianity endures. What was the first thing I mentioned?

First thing you mentioned was a flawed argument with respect to proof for Christianity. The success of Christian nations does nothing to prove its claims.

Way to carefully and deliberately skip over both myself and others calling you out on this and not responding to it at all.

 

[DCKing]

In my mind, religion and science can harmonize but not rhyme. How can one expect any one scientific field to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

You do not pick one. You pick all of them.

It is a false notion that science is for the 'how' questions and the 'why' questions are left to philosophy and religion. It's a lie, and it's evil.

 

[Erigu]

I guess it is your opinion that all Christian nations will endure for all time, and never fall?

"That's where faith kicks in!"

Do you even understand how to debate? Or is do you just post empty trash to inflate your throbbing ego.

"Empty trash"... Yes, that's fitting. Considering you have yet to explain how one gets from "Christian societies are still around" to "the christian god exists" in the first place, all the nonsense you're arguing at the moment sure seems absolutely pointless...

 

[Casp0r]

so god is a capitalist?
I thought god was against rich people, why would he create an economic system that causes a greater gap between the rich and the poor?

why am I even entertaining your posts

Making money in Christianity is not a sin. It's the love of money that is.

But shouldn't it be? Shouldn't most of the world be overtly christian by now? Why haven't the chinese converted in these last few thousand years? Why hasn't our success convinced them? Why did god allow them to have nuclear weapons? This does not allow us to ever attack their mainland.

Hold tight because this is essentially a very long response boiled down into a really simple phrase.

No one is perfect, and no one has followed Christianity perfectly. Hence deviations from success. However I'd say the continued expansion and dominance of Christianity answers your second part. 2.2 billion people is not a failure.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

You do not pick one. You pick all of them.

It is a false notion that science is for the 'how' questions and the 'why' questions are left to philosophy and religion. It's a lie, and it's evil.

You should really brush up on your Chesterton.

For the study of primitive race and religion stands apart in one important respect from all, or nearly all, the ordinary scientific studies. A man can understand astronomy only by being an astronomer; he can understand entomology only by being an entomologist (or, perhaps, an insect); but he can understand a great deal of anthropology merely by being a man. He is himself the animal which he studies. Hence arises the fact which strikes the eye everywhere in the records of ethnology and folk-lore—the fact that the same frigid and detached spirit which leads to success in the study of astronomy or botany leads to disaster in the study of mythology or human origins. It is necessary to cease to be a man in order to do justice to a microbe; it is not necessary to cease to be a man in order to do justice to men. That same suppression of sympathies, that same waving away of intuitions or guess-work which make a man preternaturally clever in dealing with the stomach of a spider, will make him preternaturally stupid in dealing with the heart of man. He is making himself inhuman in order to understand humanity. An ignorance of the other world is boasted by many men of science; but in this matter their defect arises, not from ignorance of the other world, but from ignorance of this world. For the secrets about which anthropologists concern themselves can be best learnt, not from books or voyages, but from the ordinary commerce of man with man. The secret of why some savage tribe worships monkeys or the moon is not to be found even by travelling among those savages and taking down their answers in a note-book, although the cleverest man may pursue this course. The answer to the riddle is in England; it is in London; nay, it is in his own heart. When a man has discovered why men in Bond Street wear black hats he will at the same moment have discovered why men in Timbuctoo wear red feathers. The mystery in the heart of some savage war-dance should not be studied in books of scientific travel; it should be studied at a subscription ball. If a man desires to find out the origins of religions, let him not go to the Sandwich Islands; let him go to church. If a man wishes to know the origin of human society, to know what society, philosophically speaking, really is, let him not go into the British Museum; let him go into society.

Again, it's 07:40 and I've been up all night. I'm probably going to be bowing out entirely momentarily.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You should really brush up on your Chesterton.



Again, it's 07:40 and I've been up all night. I'm probably going to be bowing out entirely momentarily.

So if I wanted to study the origin of Islam I go to a church?

 

[Uchip]

Making money in Christianity is not a sin. It's the love of money that is.

its ok to make money (lots of it) you're just not allowed to like it? what?
sounds like only Buddhist monks are going to christian heaven

 

[jaxword]

Making money in Christianity is not a sin. It's the love of money that is.

You heard it here first, folks.

You can be a capitalist, a system devoid of morals or values beyond acquiring more money, built upon the backs of those less rich than you, and be completely moral as long as you don't LOVE the money.

That's one clever loophole.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You heard it here first, folks.

You can be a capitalist, a system built upon the backs of those less rich than you, and be completely moral as long as you don't LOVE the money.

That's one clever loophole.

I would imagine a very large number of rich christians are definitely counting on that loophole.

 

[Mario]

sounds like only Buddhist monks are going to christian heaven

While we can't know much about Heaven, at least we can infer it will be spacious.

 

[jaxword]

Why do athiests feel so compelled to question and belittle people of different beliefs than what they hold?

I agree with AzureNightmare, people shouldn't question different beliefs.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

So if I wanted to study the origin of Islam I go to a church?

I'm not going to edit different worshipping sites into a hundred year old quote. Use your common sense.

 

[SonnyBoy]

I've experienced some things in my life that truly solidified my beliefs. The great part is, I could not possibly care less if any one of you believe me. It would be impossible for me to care less, LOL.

 

[DCKing]

You should really brush up on your Chesterton.

Based on the quotes you have posted here, I have better use for my time. What a load of humanity centered mumbo jumbo. It's as if the real world doesn't exist for these people.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not going to edit different worshipping sites into a hundred year old quote. Use your common sense.

I believe cold, frigid study as the quote puts it can lead to some interesting observations on human behavior and culture and an understanding which does not become tainted and biased.

I've experienced some things in my life that truly solidified my beliefs. The great part is, I could not possibly care less if any one of you believe me. It would be impossible for me to care less, LOL.

Could you at least elaborate on your beliefs here?

 

[milanbaros]

See I'd happily state constant isn't exactly accurate, let's try extrapolating growth. However you then leave just this.



Do you even understand how to debate? Or is do you just post empty trash to inflate your throbbing ego.

Not exactly accurate? You link to population growth. Something that has mostly taken place in non-Christian areas and will mostly occur in Africa in the future, hardly a beacon of constant, progressive growth. I'm not quite sure what point is being made with that link.

Secondly, you provide a link to economic growth which even shows that there was negative growth for the first 1000 years. Half of your listed time. What is that meant to show?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Why not believe?

"for every unknowable force that rewards faith, there's an infinite amount of other unknowable forces that punish faith"

 

[Sye d'Burns]

I believe cold, frigid study as the quote puts it can lead to some interesting observations on human behavior and culture and an understanding which does not become tainted and biased.

I believe cold, frigid study as the quote puts it can lead to eugenics and death camps. I'll take my understanding hot thank you.

 

[Kurdel]

You should really brush up on your Chesterton.

Again, it's 07:40 and I've been up all night. I'm probably going to be bowing out entirely momentarily.

I qm of the same opinion as Niel on this:

I believe cold, frigid study as the quote puts it can lead to eugenics and death camps. I'll take my understanding hot thank you.

The warm, passionate appeal to the christians to persecute the Christ killers lead to horrible things, won't you agree?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I believe cold, frigid study as the quote puts it can lead to eugenics and death camps. I'll take my understand hot thank you.

So, scientific study of humans leads to eugenics and death camps. Wow.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

So, scientific study of humans leads to eugenics and death camps. Wow.

Wow, indeed.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and say that Nazis did not use cold, frigid study while experimenting on Jews?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Wow, indeed.

That's more like it?

 

[Monocle]

The GodlessGAF contingent has really been on a roll with these threads lately. I've not been one to speak up about my faith until recently, this past week in fact, because man, you guys know how to push someone's buttons.





In my mind, religion and science can harmonize but not rhyme. How can one expect any one scientific field to satisfactorily reflect a philosophical concept that encompasses every facet of life?

I doubt I'll have much more to say on the topic, so save your zingers. I've been up a very long time and I likely won't get to your responses in the next dozen hours or so.

The passage you quoted jogs around the block both ways before it lets itself cross the street. All that effort just to register the observation that there's no limit to the fantasies people can indulge in when they decide evidence doesn't matter. For all his bombast, Chesterton fails to justify his core assumption, that religious claims are inherently beyond the reach of science. This we can dispose of with one terse axiom:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[beelzebozo]

is there some adjunct of godwin's law, replacing invocations of hitler, which can account for einstein's inevitable reference in any discussion of theism?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Wow, indeed.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and say that Nazis did not use cold, frigid study while experimenting on Jews?

Well, since you edited.

No, they did not. They used hate to kill people. They were hot and lusty for blood.

 

[Erigu]

You're going to sit there with a straight face and say that Nazis did not use cold, frigid study while experimenting on Jews?

I hear they had clothes on, too, so I guess naturism is the way to go.

 

[Uchip]

Wow, indeed.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and say that Nazis did not use cold, frigid study while experimenting on Jews?

this is just offensive on so many levels now
with you and casp0r in here now, im pretty sure we can let this thread die

 

[Sye d'Burns]

The passage you quoted jogs around the block both ways before it lets itself cross the street. All that effort just to register the observation that there's no limit to the fantasies people can indulge in when they decide evidence doesn't matter. For all his bombast, Chesterton fails to justify his core assumption, that religious claims are inherently beyond the reach of science. This we can dispose of with one terse axiom:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Chesterton, who took on in debate the likes of Darrow and Shaw, finally met his Waterloo at the might wit of Monocle.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Chesterton, who took on in debate the likes of Darrow and Shaw, finally met his Waterloo at the might wit of Monocle.

I believe in Monocle.

 

[DCKing]

You're going to sit there with a straight face and say that Nazis did not use cold, frigid study while experimenting on Jews?

You should really get some sleep.

The Nazis did use cold frigid study while experimenting on Jews. They dismissed the ethical problems any good human being had because they were racist.

Spoiler

And God allowed it all to happen.

The killing of the Jews was not a result of their hatred for Jews and out of their sick scientific curiosities. It was not a result of science alone. The hatred of Jews by the way, found its basis support in Christianity.

Chesterton, who took on in debate the likes of Darrow and Shaw, finally met his Waterloo at the might wit of Monocle.

It's telling when the strength of his argument comes not from his argument but his reputation.

 

[Des0lar]

Wow, indeed.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and say that Nazis did not use cold, frigid study while experimenting on Jews?

Just maybe the Nazi beliefs are what caused them to commit these atrocities. You know how most people have some sort of moral compass? Disable it by hatred and you get the Nazis or Witchburning and the killing of people simply disagreeing with you.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

I qm of the same opinion as Niel on this:

Who said to stop looking, not I?

The warm, passionate appeal to the christians to persecute the Christ killers lead to horrible things, won't you agree?

Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul's Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it. If it falsified human vision it must falsify it one way or another; it could not wear both green and rose-coloured spectacles. I rolled on my tongue with a terrible joy, as did all young men of that time, the taunts which Swinburne hurled at the dreariness of the creed—

...

It must be understood that I did not conclude hastily that the accusations were false or the accusers fools. I simply deduced that Christianity must be something even weirder and wickeder than they made out. A thing might have these two opposite vices; but it must be a rather queer thing if it did. A man might be too fat in one place and too thin in another; but he would be an odd shape. At this point my thoughts were only of the odd shape of the Christian religion; I did not allege any odd shape in the rationalistic mind.

Here is another case of the same kind. I felt that a strong case against Christianity lay in the charge that there is something timid, monkish, and unmanly about all that is called "Christian," especially in its attitude towards resistance and fighting. The great sceptics of the nineteenth century were largely virile. Bradlaugh in an expansive way, Huxley, in a reticent way, were decidedly men. In comparison, it did seem tenable that there was something weak and over patient about Christian counsels. The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. I read it and believed it, and if I had read nothing different, I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different. I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned up-side down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars. Christianity had deluged the world with blood. I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he never was angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history; because his anger had soaked the earth and smoked to the sun. The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades. It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did. The Quakers (we were told) were the only characteristic Christians; and yet the massacres of Cromwell and Alva were characteristic Christian crimes. What could it all mean? What was this Christianity which always forbade war and always produced wars? What could be the nature of the thing which one could abuse first because it would not fight, and second because it was always fighting? In what world of riddles was born this monstrous murder and this monstrous meekness? The shape of Christianity grew a queerer shape every instant.

You should really get some sleep.

The Nazis did use cold frigid study while experimenting on Jews. They dismissed the ethical problems any good human being had because they were racist.

Spoiler

And God allowed it all to happen.

The killing of the Jews was not a result of their hatred for Jews and out of their sick scientific curiosities. It was not a result of science alone. The hatred of Jews by the way, found its basis support in Christianity.
It's telling when the strength of his argument comes not from his argument but his reputation.

But as discussed earlier, ethics can't be empirically proven.

It's 08:10 and I really have to get some sleep. This will be my last post for the foreseeable.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Lack of critical thinking skills.

Lack of understanding of the scientific method and standards of rigor for evidence.

Desire to address the shortcomings of asserting a purely faith-based position and the resulting cognitive dissonance.

Desire to provide a stronger argument to more effectively proselytize.

Well that seals the deal I suppose. I pretty much have no hope left for GAF after this gem.

I think it would be interesting if an interested atheist or two read this book and made a thread about it. That might actually lead to some meaningful discussion, which is a lot more than I can say about this thread.

 

[Casp0r]

Hello again Mario, thank you for the continued debate.

<deep breath>

Or transitioned in to other things, leaving their mark on what came after.

The open nature of Christanity and it's ability to adapt and adopt local legends and culture have made aided it in the 'transition'.

I guess it is your opinion that all Christian nations will endure for all time, and never fall?

If they conform to the basic ideals then effectively yes.

I.e forgiveness, tolerance and love

So you admit there was steady progress by humanity since before the advent of Christianity?

I underestimated the effect. There was a slow constant progress, with later extrapolating growth with the introduction and advent of Christianity.

That may be the case, but by they are a hugely successful country.
They are where they are, one of the worlds superpowers.

They are successful, but they are far from good. If history has taught us anything, evil/bad/non-good nations unless conformed never last.

It's not surprise that every change China has made towards being more good, has being insanely successful. If they were to become a truely tolerant, open and democratic country then America can kiss goodbye to being the most powerful nation.

By that reasoning, the Christian nations are built on the oil of the nations of Islam.

What?

Yes, they have an increasing monopoly on a number of essential areas of manufacturing.

The movement of China towards a more Christian based nation of ownership and commercialization?

The ideals taught to us through Christianity can be applied without the names and history.

Indeed, they did. But they aren't Christian either.

Urm yes they were. American, European etc etc.

So, the abuse and violence perpetrated by Christianity is just "shit happens"? Necessary collateral damage in pursuit of the success of Christian nations?

You call out the violence and shortcomings of other religions, but under Christianity, "shit happens". Got it.

The abuse, wars etc etc directly violates the principles within Christianity. Shit happens because people are weak and corruptible.

Would it surprise you to know that child abuse is just as wide spread amongst all the other major religions? Yet only one major religion has acknowledge and set in play means to tackle this problem?

Fact is bad stuff will always happen. It's about the response of the community that counts ... and the Christian community was not happy upon finding out the revelations. Yeah I know the priests tried to cover it up, however the vast majority of the community was outraged.

Christian people too it seems. Christians within Christian nations aren't beyond the atrocities, violence, and hate speech you happily call out for other countries and religions.

I'm being drawn into defending bad people how believe they are christians now. I'm not going to defend the assholes that abuse their power. It's not part of my point that Christian nations have flourished.

Non Christian countries are still here too.

Sure but they're not flourishing and they're hardly progressive.

Against the core ideals of Christianity? Much was commited in the name of them.

Much is commited in the name of love. People murder and kill each other over love for their partners, their children.

Does that make love evil?

As much as you would prefer not to be associated, yes, they are by definition Christians.

Perhaps they, out of the thousands of different sects of Christianity, even have the most accurate interpretation of the Bible.

See you ask any Christian that and they'll flat out deny this. Why? Because they don't follow the core concept of Christianity. They read the bible literally and pull obscure and hate full meanings out of ancient texts and irreverent passages.

A core concept of Christianity is to love your neighbors and that hate is evil. Yet the WBC openly support hatred.

They may think they are, but they really are not Christians.



I never made the claim they were more successful. I suggested their lack of success doesn't support your argument.

First thing you mentioned was a flawed argument with respect to proof for Christianity. The success of Christian nations does nothing to prove its claims.

Way to carefully and deliberately skip over both myself and others calling you out on this and not responding to it at all.

The success of the Christian nations, in my opinion, is proof that the Christian message, Christian ideals and Christian laws are morally correct and work.

Such ideals as forgiveness are contradictory to basic scientific way of the world. Yet they work on such a fundamental level the introduction of such an ideal is the essence of religion. Belief. Without this entity, this judgment. The whole concept breaks down.

Of course with a stable, progressive, scientific and enlightened society now. It's easy to understand the theory behind such ideals. However these ideals came out 2000 years ago. When understanding the cause and effect of these rules was practically impossible.

The fact that these teaching and moral codes are still to this day practically perfect (I'm talking about the core fundamentals of Christianity) shows that something special happened back then.

Whether you want to equate these down to chance or higher power. It's up to you.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Well that seals the deal I suppose. I pretty much have no hope left for GAF after this gem.

I think it would be interesting if an interested atheist or two read this book and made a thread about it. That might actually lead to some meaningful discussion, which is a lot more than I can say about this thread.

No hope in what sense?

 

[FatalT]

Religious discussion on NeoGAF? AHUHAUHAUHUAHUAHUUHA!

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

No hope in what sense?

No hope that religious discussions on GAF will ever be more (and better) than what they currently are.

 

[DCKing]

But as discussed earlier, ethics can't be empirically proven.

When you wake up I'd like to know how that matters at all.

 

[Monocle]

Chesterton, who took on in debate the likes of Darrow and Shaw, finally met his Waterloo at the might wit of Monocle.

I can see why a thinker of Chesterton's caliber would make you swoon.

 

[Uchip]

No hope that religious discussions on GAF will ever be more (and better) than what they currently are.

I dont see how its any worse than any religious debate. ever.