Why Are You A Christian?

I see a pronoun and a descriptive term for one who follows the teachings of christianity. It's not like I said "you niggers" right? Is it not safe to speak to "christians" when I am debating christians? This is ironically an extremely valid point, since it seems like no two christians on this forum share much of the same beliefs at all, ranging from whether or not christ existed, to whether it matters whether or not he existed, to whether he was literally God, or the son of god, or just a nice guy who said some nice things. I'm starting to think that I cannot have a discussion with a christian without first administering a 20 question screening to determine just which unfounded beliefs specifically I will be up against.

1) I know you're not a christian

2) I have been called a barbaric atheist on these very forums, by adults, living in first world countries, in the year 2015. I've been called much worse too.

3) Beliefs are not children or handicaps. If you have a belief that you are embarassed to hold, that is a sign that you might have a problem upstairs in the noggin. You shouldn't be afraid to share your beliefs on account of them being torn apart; you should instead be worried that your beliefs are torn apart often when you share them and you don't have any recourse to defend your beliefs other than to hide them.

I believe there should be some kind of correspondence between your beliefs about how the world works, and how the world works. Do you?

As for your defense of religious moderation . . . unfortunately it might be even more dangerous than religious extremism. For one, it allows religious extremism to continue existing under the umbrella of liberal apologists and moderates who vouchsafe the sanctity of "religion" and ensure that it continues to be respected in society as a valid mode of thought. We find ourselves in a situation where I am allowed to ridicule the beliefs of my neighbour Tom, who believes that every morning when he eats a waffle, it becomes the body of Elvis in his mouth, yet I cannot ridicule the beliefs of millions of catholics, who believe that when they eat the communal wafer, it becomes the body of a 2000 year old jew. I find moderates also have a much weaker grasp of the importance of evidence and reason; you tend to find that religious fanatics actually have reasons for why they believe the things they do, whereas moderates seem to be unsure of what exactly to believe or what exactly to value but have a kneejerk reaction towards protecting the entire enterprise of religion. You see that in this thread very well; a fanatic would have long ago told me I'm a fool for not heeding the prophecies of the old testament, whereas the moderates have only the one card they keep playing . . "stop being a meeny my beliefs are super special my mommy told me so"

You couldn't be more wrong; all I care about is what people believe and why. You think i care that I won an argument with some pixels on my screen? That's what I play call of duty for. How dare I bring up psychological health. How dare I attempt to involve it in the discussion, when I should have known that it is rude to suggest that the contents of someones mind, such as their beliefs, is indicative of the state of that mind and its health. How silly of me! I should have just nodded gravely and respectfully when told that human resurrection is a confirmed phenomenon.

I agree, it's stupid beyond words. For one, what exactly is a "neurotic obsession with logic and evidence"? All I know is that I use evidence to survive life, and I apply the same standards of evidence for questions about the meaning of life and such as I do about which food to buy in the grocery store. Also this idea that I'm "shoving it down your throats", just appaling. Somehow the communication of MY point of view is no longer posts on the forum, but actual physical violence done against the esophagus of pious men and women around the world. Truly, I could teach ISIS a thing or two, if they wouldn't have me beheaded first for not believing that a 1500 year old muslim ascended to heaven on a winged horse. I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand the depth of such an intricate belief.

There's no reason we can't have churches without believing in propositions that have no evidence. There's no reason we can't create art that touches us in the depths of our souls without needing to swear fealty to an imagined autocrat in the great beyond.

I can love the Parthenon without needing to practice any of the rites of ancient greece; I can be moved by its majesty and beauty and think it is the single greatest artistic achievement of all mankind, without needing to join the cult of Athena ~ Christopher Hitchens (paraphrased, he wrote a whole book on it)



Use your head better Samantha. Defending the art that was created by christians will do you no good when it is not the art that is under attack; it is christianity. I adore muslim architecture, but I think Islam is one of the worst ideas mankind has ever come up with. The two are really not connected in the way you're thinking they are. We can have our cake, and eat it too. We can do away with superstitious thinking while preserving every iota of art which it has thus far been tenuously wed to.

This is a trite and false accusation and it's frankly sad that you are even saying such a thing, revealing the lack of your involvement with the conversation at large. If you know anything about me, it's that I think Islam is the chief concern of our day. I think christianity took a dark, endless pit of human misery, ego, and violence we call "Judaism" and turned it into a not half bad thing in comparison. For its time and place christianity brought a massive amount of positive social and philosophical light to the world.

I see, so the only bad thing they believe is that if I don't believe in their religion by the time I die, I will be tortured for all eternity by clawed demons of the pit who will rape me with longswords and force me to watch my loved ones be mutilated and eaten alive for all time with no hope of respite. But hey, they celebrate Easter and make a nice ham, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.

until it comes time to turn that light of reason onto their christian beliefs, and then it's Cognitive Dissonance City. You can see the hatred towards reason in this thread by perfectly reasonable people who are probably pretty sharp and about their wits when buying a car or being asked for money on the street, but man, you start talking about messianic cults from iron age palestine, and they see it a noble endeavor to turn that reason right off in the name of comfort.

 

I can't give an answer to the first part here because I don't believe in the Christian God as depicted in the Bible. The idea of God vs Devil is something to which I have never really subscribed, even as a child. Thus it's something I have never really felt any need to spend time on. It can work as a poetic device, but that's about all.
I'm more interested in the Indian concept of God as Brahman as elucidated in the Upanishads and elsewhere. A follower of yoga would say the only conceivable way to know if Brahman is real is to experience it. Hence the various yoga systems aimed at such realization. They are all systematic and logical in their presentation, but the goal is beyond system and logic.

Back to Christians and them not wanting to express their views. It's not their views really, but why or how they came to be Christian they won't discuss. My guess would be that it's because Christianity in general appeals, or seeks to appeal, to the emotions rather than the pure intellect. So experiences people have that lead them to become Christian could be felt as intensely personal. Thus they may not want to throw it out into the public arena. Or maybe I'm wrong. But I'm basing it on conversations I've had with Christians over years.
I doubt anyone has ever converted without there being some significant emotional content. Not saying all Christians are stupid here, because some obviously are quite educated and intelligent.

I think this appeal to emotion is both a strength and a weakness in Christianity. A strength because it has enabled the conversion of uneducated and unsophisticated masses of people during the course of history. A weakness because virtually all Christian thinking has a kind of emotional underpinning, and because in a more advanced stage of culture,where education and free thinking are more widespread, it doesn't appeal much to most of the intelligentsia.

 

Truly.

I definitely see some strong parallels between fundamentalists of all kinds.

I was thinking about a specific post of yours, about Christmas. I don't have time to find it right now, but I have picked up some mixed signals in the past from you on this topic, and I'm trying not to make any assumptions. You know, people can be quite complex. I have one friend who is a liberal Christian and another who is a social Christian, and I've seen both do some very hedonistic things. Anyone making broad assumptions about them would be wrong.

 

It's good to be aware christian people are primarily human individuals too just like you, me and every other weirdo, and not primarily a christian.

In fanatic discussions where their convo partners focus on pointing out their nonsensical beliefs they get a lot of projections and stereotypes they have to answer to, and explain that does not apply to them. This happens often enough in other topics too (gun control thread comes to mind). You don't have to be a christian to say I'm not getting into all this defending of things I'm not. But when it is done by a christian it seems commonly connected to the fact they are a christian, hiding or excusing themselves, or are emberassed of their beliefs. This while its normal human behaviour. People get fed up if they get the wrong things projected upon them consistently.

The smart thing to realize is that when someone doesn't understand how another person can live with a particular mindset or belief system is that YOU do not understand how they want to live like that.

What makes me happy is that in this thread several people that are not christian understand this and even express this, and acknowledge that just because we don't believe in the same way at all we still can see they are not by default a potential danger to society just because of their faith in something that cannot be proven. Not all is lost

 

For some of those reasons mentioned, among others (i.e. claiming an Earth only several thousand years old), It's fascinating that you see the viewpoint of Biblical literalists as equally dogmatic to those whose "dogma" is based on logic in the same light. The comparison seems completely disingenuous to me, but perhaps for selfish practical reasons...

Completely revoking logic, means no more computers to have this discussion on, no medicine and technology, what does completely revoking Biblical literalism mean? Facing the facts that reality and the universe is more dynamic and complex that what can be contained in a book written a couple thousand years ago by people living under completely different conditions.. Is there Much else?

In the face of more nuanced theories (hypothesis) regarding the ultimate nature of the universe, such as it being a giant Computer simulation, a part of a larger Multiverse, or another type of understanding coming along that rivals or is more efficient and consistent then logic and reason, then perhaps we may see just how "dogmatic" atheists might be.

 

If you want to talk about literalist Christianity, it's better to address you criticism to those who profess such beliefs. Since I'm not among their number, I don't think I'm the person to address your concerns on that.

Personally, I value logic, but I also think it has limitations.

 

I'm not attempting to talk to a literal Christian though, I'm talking to you to make sure I understand what you are saying and you understand the implications of what you are saying.

 

Maybe that's asking too much of a great number of people. They stick to their own mental habits, personal preferences etc. Many have a significant emotional investment in their beliefs, and it's beyond their capacity to set that aside and view things from another perspective. Or they aren't even aware of the existence of another perspective. The fact that critics continually harp on about extreme forms of mainly American fundamentalism for example, might lead one to conclude that's all they know of Christianity,or in fact spirituality as a whole.

 

OK then in simple terms - Christians are dogmatic that God exists, atheists are equally as dogmatic that God doesn't exist. Neither side can prove their chosen position.

Hope that clarifies it.

 

Perhaps and perhaps especially true, if it originates in a finite ~1200-1300 cc brain that needs to communicate and orchestrate many other functions throughout the body and is dealing with a very dynamic yet specific set of circumstances, in its interactions with reality.

But is faith the appropriate "old reliable" to fall back on in understanding reality, when/if our logic reaches limitations?

 

Well, surely not all they know of christianity (when talking about well read/educated atheists), but perhaps the only kind of chistianity and christians they have experienced and witnessed first hand themselves. I really can see if you are in a country as the USA and esp. in an area where fundamentalistic christians still have a lot of impact that it causes certain atheists to be lets say more militant. It's not right, it's rarely useful, but I understand how they got there.

You know the burden of proof is upon those who make the crazy assertion! JK Depends on the exact situation, as always. When asked to share their personal beliefs in a thread that is specificly about that they can state that they believe God exists and do not have to feel guilty for refusing to play a frantic atheist's interrogations game. It's nice if they do (I guess if I was a christian I would only be bothered if I detect sincere interest, and not a derogatory approach that is ment to trick a person in a defense position) and it's ok when they don't.
When in another kind of convo or thread a theist states such a thing as a fact they may be rightfully asked 'wth is that so certain to you/them?' Details, context, open mind. All too easily neglected when the conviction is already too firm (often counts for both parties involved )

 

Not really, I don't know what you mean by 'God'?

For instance, I can't prove that aliens have not hijacked my brain and implanted an invisible undectable field that has made me hallucinate this whole discussion either, am I then dogmatic for not accepting this that to be the reality of the situation based upon the available evidence? I don't think so. Seems the term dogma becomes superflous at that point.

Although if I wake up on Zeenax quadrant 2 after I die, I'll remember biting my words in this discussion, unless of course they break out the ole Z-243 (sorry I don't know how to translate the 3) memory scramblizers.

 

Where did I use the word faith? I don't think I did. I said in a previous post that in the yoga systems the idea is to know Brahman, not have faith that it's there.

 

Brahman - as elucidated in the Upanishads I said before, and I repeat again. If you don't know about that, it's up to you to get informed from the source if you're really interested, rather than get a very inadequate account form me.

 

That was mentioned partly in the context of your equating trust in logic to faith in biblical literalism..

Ok, so When logic reaches it's limitations, how does to 'know' Brahman provide a better understanding than faith?

 

I'm sure if I lived in a place where fundamentalist religion of any kind was the norm I'd get pissed off about it, and I do see that aspect.

I agree that it's pointless just to set oneself up for attacks by people who aren't actually interested in what you say, only in affirming their own views and that you're wrong, stupid, or whatever else.

 

I don't equate logic and Bible literalism and never said I do. The idea you seem unable to grasp is that God is not the sole province of the Bible literalist.

As I said before, if you're interested in Indian yoga, check it out. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into long explanations.

 

Uhh...

Oh blessed be logic for this timestamp !!

 

^ In the way it often gets expressed, atheism is just as dogmatic as fundamentalism.

That isn't to say it's the same thing, or has equivalent value.

 

I think obfuscating logic and reason to the point of calling them "Gods" is telling of residing in your own dogmas and biases.