I'm becoming an atheist

[dontsplatmatt 0]

So you're telling me that contemporary Christians believe that the entire Old Testament is erroneous and outdated? Don't be ridiculous. I've never heard of a Christian church (I'm sure they are out there, but it's definitely not the majority) that ignores "god's word" from before Jesus came along and uses Bibles composed of only the New Testament. If Christians don't believe the Old Testament then a) they are not Christians because they do not believe all of "god's word" or b) "god's word" is imperfect and therefore their "god" by definition does not exist

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Contemporary Christians believe that Jesus and "god" are the same entity and that the entire Bible, not just the New Testament, is the holy word of this entity transcribed by humans. They read and believe (are deceived by it) on a daily basis, so I fail to see how the Old Testament doesn't apply to them.

I believe there are quite a few Christians who only follow the New Testament.

I think among the people who consider themselves to be Christians, there is a huge variance in beliefs and practices, so it doesn't really work to group them all together for most things.

[billvon 2,400]

>So you're telling me that contemporary Christians believe that the entire
>Old Testament is erroneous and outdated?

There are contemporary Christians who even believe that parts of the New Testment are erroneous. (Certainly outdated; heck, it's been translated dozens of times!) But "has errors" is not the same as "useless."

> If Christians don't believe the Old Testament then a) they are
>not Christians because they do not believe all of "god's word" . . .

I think it would be a miracle if any Christian out there heeded your opinion over their own. It would be like someone telling you you're not an American.

[dontsplatmatt 0]

Quote

I believe there are quite a few Christians who only follow the New Testament.

I bet he will be ecstatic to hear that his followers no longer like what he has to say.

Lookie lookie what I just found.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Don't think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. "I have not come to destroy them but to bring about what they said. I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until Heaven and Earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost until everything has happened."

So Jesus thinks that the Old Testament is legit?? What does that do for his credentials??

[dontsplatmatt 0]

Quote

But "has errors" is not the same as "useless."

No but "has errors" does mean that it is imperfect which means that their god is imperfect which means that he does not exist according to their definition.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I believe there are quite a few Christians who only follow the New Testament.

I bet he will be ecstatic to hear that his followers no longer like what he has to say.

Lookie lookie what I just found.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Don't think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. "I have not come to destroy them but to bring about what they said. I tell you the truth, nothing will disappear from the law until Heaven and Earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost until everything has happened."

So Jesus thinks that the Old Testament is legit?? What does that do for his credentials??

I have no idea what Jesus thinks (thought) or whether he ever even existed. And I don't know why some people believe the Bible to be the word of God but then pick and choose what they want to follow out of it. I personally find the Bible to be of no use in my own life.

[billvon 2,400]

>No but "has errors" does mean that it is imperfect which means that
>their god is imperfect which means that he does not exist according to their
>definition.

That sounds like your definition. (Which is fine; you can believe whatever you choose.)

[dontsplatmatt 0]

How so? By definition, the Christian god is a perfect being. Logic tells us that something perfect cannot create imperfection. If the Bible is imperfect, he does not meet all the criteria.

[billvon 2,400]

>How so? By definition, the Christian god is a perfect being.

Uh, OK. Which sect of Christianity do you belong to, then?

>Logic tells us that something perfect cannot create imperfection.

?? How does logic tell us that? Can a wise parent create an unwise child? Yes. Can a smart programmer create a dumb program? Yes. Can a guy with a perfect driving record bang up his bumper? Yes.

>If the Bible is imperfect, he does not meet all the criteria.

You're trying really hard to create a straw man, but it's not working. A great many Christians do not consider the Bible perfect. If you disagree, great. But your beliefs do not invalidate other people's.

[dontsplatmatt 0]

I do not belong to any branch of Christianity. I am an anti-theist. I don't really understand what you're getting at. Are you implying that Christians don't believe their god is perfect?

Smart, wise, etc are all relative attributes and a perfect driving record does not necessarily constitute a perfect driver. Perfection is not relative. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

If you created a scenario with a perfect driver getting into a fender bender then it would relate to our discussion more with god being the driver and the Bible being the collision. By definition, a perfect driver cannot get into an accident, and similarly, a perfect god cannot write an imperfect book.

EDIT: Or to relate your parenting scenario, it would have to be a perfect parent as "god" is not just wise but he is perfect. A perfect parent with perfect DNA, perfect love, perfect knowledge of raising children, etc could not create an unwise child. If the child was in fact unwise, that means there is a flaw somewhere in the parent.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

. . . a perfect god cannot write an imperfect book.

It could if it intended to, if the "mistakes" were there for a reason.

And I don't think that anyone believes that God actually wrote the book. I think the idea is that man wrote down the word of God, and man later translated that into many different languages, so there is lots of room there for human error.

(This is not what I believe, just the reasoning I've heard from some people who believe that the Bible is the word of God.)

[dontsplatmatt 0]

Quote

It could if it intended to, if the "mistakes" were there for a reason.

This is an interesting point. Please elaborate.

Quote

And I don't think that anyone believes that God actually wrote the book. I think the idea is that man wrote down the word of God, and man later translated that into many different languages, so there is lots of room there for human error.

Well then IMO it has no more credibility than any other book, and it would be unwise to unquestioningly base your entire life on its teachings as many do.

[billvon 2,400]

>Are you implying that Christians don't believe their god is perfect?

I'm Christian; I don't think our understanding of God is even close to perfect.

>If you created a scenario with a perfect driver getting into a fender
>bender then it would relate to our discussion more . . .

OK. Let's say a perfect driver wants to get into a fender bender. He does so, and bends his fender just the way he wants it to be bent. He is still a perfect driver. You see this incident and think "he must not have meant to do that, so he's imperfect." In that case it would be your error, not his, based on your misunderstanding.

Let's take another case. Someone creates a perfect sphere out of neutronium. It is perfectly spherical to the limits of atomic observation. Someone writes a story about it and says "they created a perfect sphere; all four corners were exactly the same distance from each other." Spheres can't have corners - so does his story mean the sphere is no longer perfect?

But in any case "God is perfect" is a strawman. I could do the opposite:

Anti-theists all believe the Universe was created from nothing. But science has shown that there _was_ something there at the beginning of time; indeed, even today there is no such thing as perfectly empty space, or nothing. So the basis of their entire belief system is invalid.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

It could if it intended to, if the "mistakes" were there for a reason.

This is an interesting point. Please elaborate.

Oh, I don't know... maybe as some sort of test or something.

Quote

Quote

And I don't think that anyone believes that God actually wrote the book. I think the idea is that man wrote down the word of God, and man later translated that into many different languages, so there is lots of room there for human error.

Well then IMO it has no more credibility than any other book, and it would be unwise to unquestioningly base your entire life on its teachings as many do.

I agree. But, given the wide range of beliefs and practices among Christians, I'm guessing that many of them do question (and interpret) the Bible's teachings.

Now I'm not sure how they continue to believe it's the word of God, but hey, not everyone thinks the same way that I do. (And I don't really care, except when it is affecting me or hurting others.)

[dontsplatmatt 0]

Quote

OK. Let's say a perfect driver wants to get into a fender bender. He does so, and bends his fender just the way he wants it to be bent. He is still a perfect driver. You see this incident and think "he must not have meant to do that, so he's imperfect." In that case it would be your error, not his, based on your misunderstanding.

If he was all-knowing, he would know that we would be unable to understand his intentional mistakes. If it's his intent for us to all join him in heaven, and he is omnipotent, then he should utilize this omnipotence to help us out. Being elusive and then condemning people to hell when they didn't believe in him is an asshole move, and if he did exist and this were the case, I would walk into hell with my head held high knowing that I didn't worship such a monster.

This is touching on Epicurus's views that god cannot be all good and omnipotent as claimed. These two qualities contrast because there is suffering in the world. If he is all good then he cannot like or support evil or suffering. If he is omnipotent, then it is within his power to eradicate evil and suffering. So if he chooses to allow evil and suffering in the world then he is not all good, and if he is unable to prevent it then he is not omnipotent.

Quote

But in any case "God is perfect" is a strawman. I could do the opposite:

Anti-theists all believe the Universe was created from nothing.

Probably the most common misconception from people who don't understand atheism. Atheists do not believe that the universe was created from nothing. Atheists reject beliefs that any deities exist. I don't know how the universe got its kickstart, but science is only getting closer to the answers. Christians are the ones who believe everything came from nothing as none of them can seem to explain how god came into existence. "He has just always been..."

[billvon 2,400]

>Probably the most common misconception from people who don't
>understand atheism.

Agreed! Now see if you can apply that concept to what you said about Christianity.

[dontsplatmatt 0]

Quote

Oh, I don't know... maybe as some sort of test or something.

I don't know about you, but I find this to be a very evil concept. If I kidnapped a little girl, and relentlessly tortured her would you not consider me a heinous person? Why is "god" not held to the same standards? Why is he allowed to do evil things to test our faith?

Quote

And I don't really care, except when it is affecting me or hurting others.

I agree 100%. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The problem is that religion often does hurt others or infringe on their rights. Abraham sacrificing his son. Hindu caste system. The Crusades. Aztec sacrifices. Violence in the Middle East. Westboro Baptist Church protest. Christianity's campaign against homosexuality. Because we do not need religion to have morality as I pointed out earlier, and all these terrible things mentioned above are directly caused by religion, the world would be better off without it.

[billvon 2,400]

>If I kidnapped a little girl, and relentlessly tortured her would you not
>consider me a heinous person?

Yep. Now if you were a teacher, and you relentlessly both taught and tested kids - and threatened to give them grades that might keep them out of college, thus damaging their earning potential - would you be considered evil?

>Because we do not need religion to have morality as I pointed out earlier,
>and all these terrible things mentioned above are directly caused by
>religion, the world would be better off without it.

If what you said was true, the Tamil Tigers would not be killing anyone.

But they do. When people don't have religion as an excuse for misbehaving, they use race, or patriotism, or revenge, or some other equally compelling cause. "Ending religion to end violence" would be akin to ending violence in the world through the banning of government.

[dontsplatmatt 0]

I have a very good understanding of Christianity. I know more about it than many Christians who I participate in theological discussions with. I won't comment on anyone in these forums because it is difficult to estimate a person's intelligence from a few online posts, but I'm not religiously uninformed by any means. Nothing I've said is untrue. You may be the exception, but many Christians do believe god is perfect. Many do consider the Bible to be his infallible word.

[dontsplatmatt 0]

Quote

Yep. Now if you were a teacher, and you relentlessly both taught and tested kids - and threatened to give them grades that might keep them out of college, thus damaging their earning potential - would you be considered evil?

Yes if I taught them nothing and instead used riddles to force them to rely on leaps of faith and just accept answers. And keeping someone out of college is a bit less extreme than forcing them to live with an excruciatingly painful, incurable disease.

Quote

When people don't have religion as an excuse for misbehaving, they use race, or patriotism, or revenge, or some other equally compelling cause. "Ending religion to end violence" would be akin to ending violence in the world through the banning of government.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that ending religion would end all the world's issues. I said it would make the world better. There are a variety of reasons why people do bad things. Religion is a significant one. If it doesn't benefit humanity and often causes suffering, there is no point in keeping it around.

[billvon 2,400]

>Nothing I've said is untrue. You may be the exception, but many Christians
>do believe god is perfect. Many do consider the Bible to be his infallible
>word.

Can you identify even one person here who thinks the Bible is infallibly, literally true?

>Yes if I taught them nothing and instead used riddles to force them to
>rely on leaps of faith and just accept answers.

You've contradicted yourself here. On the one hand you say "yes, a person who teaches them nothing and just asks them questions is evil" (i.e. the Socratic method is evil.) Then you say "forcing them to just accept answers is evil" which is the opposite.

>And keeping someone out of college is a bit less extreme than
>forcing them to live with an excruciatingly painful, incurable disease.

Wouldn't that make someone in your position similarly bad? There are undoubtedly many people who are suffering excruciatingly painful and (to them) incurable diseases in third world countries, diseases which could likely be cured or at least managed with modern medicine. Why do you force them to live with those diseases instead of helping them?

>You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that ending religion would
>end all the world's issues.

"and all these terrible things mentioned above are directly caused by religion, the world would be better off without it."

>If it doesn't benefit humanity and often causes suffering, there is
>no point in keeping it around.

Good bye skydiving!

[dcfreefly 0]

Quote

Anti-theists all believe the Universe was created from nothing

No they don't. This is something that many religious people use in arguments regarding the origins of the universe. I agree that the idea of "nothing" could just be that, an idea. And what you suggest removes the necessity of a "creator".

[billvon 2,400]

>>Anti-theists all believe the Universe was created from nothing

>No they don't.

You are correct; they don't. That was an example of a strawman argument, akin to "Christians believe the Bible is infallible."

[Bolas 5]

Quote

I'm Christian

Wow. Learn something new every day. Sometimes shocking.

Quote

If what you said was true, the Tamil Tigers would not be killing anyone.

But they do. When people don't have religion as an excuse for misbehaving, they use race, or patriotism, or revenge, or some other equally compelling cause. "Ending religion to end violence" would be akin to ending violence in the world through the banning of government.

I knew you'd bring them up in this discussion eventually.

Whether the Tamil Tigers have a religious background is debatable depending on who's reprting, but "Ending religion to end violence" is neither realistic not the goal.

I'd agree with either statement below:
* Ending religion to end the largest source of violence.
* Ending religion to end religious violence.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,400]

>I'd agree with either statement below:
>* Ending religion to end religious violence.

Well, that's as accurate as "ending gun ownership to end gun violence." Nice idea in theory; not so practical or smart in practice.