The Christian Bashing thred.

[joe]

What about this to get the ball rolling (note this is from a non-believer):

There is a universal constant which if it were different to something like a trillion trillion decimal places (or something of that order) would make human life impossible. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the universe must have been fine-tuned to our existence by some designer... it is just too lucky that such a state of affairs should come about by chance.

(note there have been responses to this that we live in a multiverse- in just one of every possible orientation of reality, hence it is unsurprising that one universe (ours) is like this. However belief in this idea is as much based on faith as the idea of an intelligent designer!)

[Rob Hearn]

I apologise. A posteriori is better.

And Joe, that kind of thinking is a misguided. While it seems fortunate that the universe turned out that way, that's only because we're looking back at it as beings whose existence the universe made possible. If it had been different in some way, then different beings would presumably be saying the same thing. Richard Feynman illustrated this point when he said something like, "What were the chances that I would see a blue car with the registration *** *** at 8.30 on a tuesday night? How very fortunate."

However, without doubting that the fortunate pitch of the universe implies a creator (which, of course, I do) what does that tell us about the inferred creator? Practically nothing. There could have been more than one, good or bad, and it or they may or may not still be alive. Not exactly christian doctrine.

Edited for correction (I originally had 'whose existence made the universe possible' which is silly)

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 16:13, 8th Jan 2005:
I apologise. A posteriori is better.

And Joe, that kind of thinking is a misguided. While it seems fortunate that the universe turned out that way, that's only because we're looking back at it as beings whose existence made the universe possible. If it had been different in some way, then different beings would presumably be saying the same thing. Richard Feynman illustrated this point when he said something like, "What were the changes that I would see a blue car with the registration *** *** at 8.30 on a tuesday night? How very fortunate."

However, without doubting that the fortunate pitch of the universe implies a creator (which, of course, I do) what does that tell us about the inferred creator? Practically nothing. There could have been more than one, good or bad, and it or they may or may not still be alive. Not exactly christian doctrine.


sorry, didn't he more or less adress that in his note?

[hr]
I want my BBC

[Rob Hearn]

No, not at all. He pointed to the suggestion of a 'multiverse'; I say, essentially, that something is only unlikely if there are odds in the first place.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Arg... go offline for a couple days and too much to respond to at once comes along.

I'll restrict this to the faith vs. reason issue at the moment, in response to Rob.

Reason can only take one so far. It can be used to get one to the point of accepting that God is possible, but not much further. I should refer to logic, rather than Reason, because using 'reason' makes it sound like non-logical motives for belief are vulgar and 'unreasonable', in the common sense. I do not believe that at all.

There have been events in my life that have led me to faith in God. To me, these experiences act as perfectly good reasons. However, you ask for proof, and that they can never be. Proof implies that you want something that can be systematically repeated so that you could experiance it as well, such as a laboratory experiment.

And I'm not about to spill gasoline on myself and light a match again in an attempt to satisfy your curiosity. "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" after all.

So, I have reasons for believing that are my own. Reason or logic can not disprove God, however 'unlikely' He may seem to a purely logical inquiry, therefore I do not see my faith as being mutually exclusive with Reason. If logic could disprove, conclusively, that God exists, or if you could provide me with solid evidence that He does not, then there would be a problem, and I would most likely be forced to concede the point.

However, nothing you have brought up so far even remotely comes close to a conclusive refutation of God. Therefore, since Reason leaves the question open, and I have a set of experiences that would seem to strongly suggest the existence of God *to me*, I believe. I know and I accept, however, that such experiences will carry no currency with you. Therefore, I, and others of my persuasion are left with logic and rhetoric to persuade... poor tools for us, I'm afraid.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[Jamie McMorrin]

[s]joe wrote on 16:12, 8th Jan 2005:
(note there have been responses to this that we live in a multiverse- in just one of every possible orientation of reality, hence it is unsurprising that one universe (ours) is like this. However belief in this idea is as much based on faith as the idea of an intelligent designer!)


Also, the 'many universes theory' becomes ridiculous when you apply it to everyday things. How do aeroplanes fly? Well, there are lots and lots of universes, therefore there is bound to be a universe where planes can fly. This avoids the seemingly obvious conclusion- the reason the plane does not fall from the sky is because it has been designed by an intelligent mind.

[Rob Hearn]

As I've said, it will always be impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, because that's a negative statement. However, I hope I've shown that arguments based on negative statements are meaningless. They are simply extreme scepticism. 'You can't prove that God doesn't exist' carries *exactly* the same weight as 'you can't prove we're not brains in jars, whose thoughts are being manipulated.' Surely this piece of extreme sceptical rationalising can't be your only way of reconciling your beliefs with the rational world outside religion.

One piece of evidence against the existence of god that I - along with others - have adduced is that the reality of the world seems conspicuously at odds with the nature of god as described by, in this instance, christianity. Many of christianity's empirical statements can be proven to be either false or of vanishingly small likelihood. This, naturally, brings the remainder of christianity's claims into question. And given that many christian beliefs are indisputably unreliable, what actually is the basis for believing in god, other than faith?

What I asked you for is evidence for god's existence. By having this debate, let's say I'm trying to persuade you that god doesn't exist; why not try to persuade me that he does? I feel like I've given reasons for my dubiousness about god's existence, but I haven't heard, from any quarter, a reason for faith; only ways of holding onto faith if you already have it. Just 'I believe, and you can't make me not believe.' You acknowledge of course that your own testimony, while significant to you, has no currency in a rational debate. I'd quite like to hear it anyway.

Also, I'd quite like to hear a religious person say 'God might not exist.'

[Jamie McMorrin]

Might I reccommend a website that may be interesting. It belongs to the Faith Movement, a dynamic yet firmly orthodox group of the Catholic faithful who seek, through the promotion of a "new synthesis of faith and reason", to disprove the oft-peddled myth that science has somehow 'disproved' the existence of God.

Incidentally, both faith and reason are necessary- if one could arrive at a conclusion based on reason alone then this would have been done long ago and there would be no need for this discussion. However, as mentioned above, there is logical, reasonable evidence which suggests that the existence of God is, at least highly possible and at most highly probable- the jump from this to certainty and the expulsion of the 'might and might not' requires faith, which is a different matter altogether.

(http://www.faith.org.uk/homepage/Ideas/godarts.htm )

[LonelyPilgrim]

Ok, God might not exist. In which case, when I die, I will have spent my life believing in foolishness, but thankfully, I'll never realise that. What is personally harder to admit, is the possibility that God exists, but that He is not my God, the Christian God. I confidently reject polytheism... but that still leaves the possibility that God, should He exist, could be a Jewish God (and really pissed off that I fell for this guy Jesus' crap) or Islam's Allah (royally upset that I didn't make an explicit oath of fealty to His Will). And of course, the possibility is still open that God exists, but is none of these Gods.

Any Christian, or member of any other religion for that matter, who tells you that they've never doubted their faith is either a liar or a saint or incredibly naive and dense. A believer then is not somebody who never questions God, but rather one who, at the end of the questioning, always ends up with the same Answer. So, I'll admit that God might not exist. But it's not what I believe, and it's an admission made only from an academic viewpoint.

So, to address the question of Christianity's empirical claims. What exactly do you mean by this?

Certainly you do not mean such things as the Church's insistence that there is no such thing as vacuum? Or that the earth is the center of the universe? Such things are not the claims of Christianity, but rather the claims of the Church, and the two 'c' words are not synonymous.

So the only other claims that have been made that could be disproved would likely be the ones coming out of the beginning of Genesis... the Creation myth, the Flood, Eden, etc. I've already said that as far as I'm concerned they are so much nonsense... a prologue stuck onto the beginning of the Bible story because the early writers needed a storytelling device to explain where we came from. The lack of evidence to the contrary is the only reason it wasn't rejected sooner, and the number of Christians who cling stubbornly to the 'truth' of those 11 pages (yes, it's only 11 pages in the NIV!) is ever shrinking.

The vast majority of Christians will concede to science when science proves it's point. It's only the overly vocal fanatics who put up a fight, and I would go so far as to say that their faith is weak, if they think evolution is a threat to God. At any rate, religion's rearguard action versus science is ultimately only over 11 pages that act as a prologue to the introduction of Abram in the Bible. It's neither a significant loss for Christianity nor a significant victory for Science.

I'll end this point by drawing an analogy. The storytelling phrase "Once upon a time..." is a cliche. Literary critics are well within their rights to claim that a story that begins in such a manner is beginning with an awful cliche. However, if that critic were to dismiss the entire story as rubbish, on the basis of it's opening four words, we would naturally reject that critic as overly harsh, unfair, and a bad critic.

Hmmmm... it is late, and I am tired, and I'm sick, and should be getting rest. As this is already a long post, I'll have to leave off on my reasons for having faith for another post... so to summarize this post:

1. God might not exist. I don't believe that, but as an academic point, I'll grant it to you.

2. Could you please summarise what empirical claims of Christianity have been refuted, in your view?

3. I'm still concerned that you might be confusing 'Christianity', ie. the message of Christ as contained in the gospels, with the 'Church', ie. the beliefs and dogmas laid down by the people who have claimed to be Christian in the two thousand years since Christ's alleged death and resurection.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[flarewearer]

[s]Jamie McMorrin wrote on 01:47, 9th Jan 2005:
Might I reccommend a website that may be interesting.


no, you mightn't

[hr]
..Is space hot?... ...Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from?...

[Rob Hearn]

Ignore the stuff about christianity's empirical claims. For the record, I don't think you can neatly distinguish the church from christianity in the way that you suggest. Furthermore, the bible, including the gospel, makes claims that aren't plausible unless one believes in god, which is getting things in the wrong order - something you complained quite insistently about a few posts back. One cannot, for instance, walk on water.

However, that was a side issue. What I would like is for you to offer evidence of god's existence. That's the question that was raised a few posts ago, and still hasn't been addressed. Let's hear a positive argument, rather than a negative or a defensive one. Why not say the circumstances under which you discovered religion?

Incidentally, I discovered this site during the course of the debate. It's quite interesting, if intemperate in demeanour. Could I hear some comments on the claims it makes?

http://www.evilbible.com/

[exnihilo]

I shall say this one last time - if you're going to talk about 'religion' (please NOTE spelling) then have the decency to have the first notion to know what you're talking about. If you're going to talk about the ills of the mediaeval Catholic church, ditto. If, on, the other hand, you are going to spout unsubstantiated gobshite then perhaps we'd all be better off if you went away and revised for your exams instead. They're bound to be awfully difficult, I'm told they've been getting more so in inverse proportion to how much easier it's been getting to get into university.

[flarewearer]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 09:30, 9th Jan 2005:
I shall say this one last time - if you're going to talk about 'religion'


my humble aplogies, i totally forgot that religion is a reserved issue on which only you can be authorative and correct. It also slipped my minf that this board is your personal, private property on which you direct what can and can not be said, and where that can be done.

[hr]
..Is space hot?... ...Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from?...

[exnihilo]

No, what you forgot is how to read with understanding. All I ask is that if you talk about 'religion' you actually have a clue what it is you're knocking before so doing. If all you want to knock is the Catholic church, so be it. But before you attack all organised religions it might serve you to know what their tenets are and what their followers believe. Whereas, at the moment, your posts betray a near total want of knowledge and a mindless condemnation of that which you palpably don't understand.

Also, the heavy handed sarcasm and attempts at condescension would work better, again, if done from a position of superior knowledge.

[flarewearer]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 11:15, 9th Jan 2005:


where as your are just full of long words in an attempt to make yourself sound superior to those who just can't give a shit. As for the catholic church, I may not know much of their theology, but any orginisation that actively assisted SS Nazi war criminals to gain new identities and escape justice has something to answer for. I have read that the vatican may come out against smoking, which would be something at least. I await the reversal of policy on condoms with baited breath.

[hr]
..Is space hot?... ...Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from?...

[JAK]

[s]flarewearer wrote on 09:50, 9th Jan 2005:
[s]exnihilo wrote on 09:30, 9th Jan 2005:[i]
I shall say this one last time - if you're going to talk about 'religion'


my humble aplogies, i totally forgot that religion is a reserved issue on which only you can be authorative and correct. It also slipped my minf that this board is your personal, private property on which you direct what can and can not be said, and where that can be done.

[hr]
..Is space hot?... ...Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from?...
[/i]

If you're going to quote the previous post, don't just quote the first part to take it out of context.

[hr]
I want my BBC

[novium]

[s]flarewearer wrote on 11:19, 9th Jan 2005:
[s]exnihilo wrote on 11:15, 9th Jan 2005:[i]


actively assisted SS Nazi war criminals to gain new identities and escape justice
[hr]
..Is space hot?... ...Of course it is, where do you think we get pineapples from?...
[/i]



I don't think so. I know it is very popular right now to accuse Catholics of having been in league with the nazis, but you know, that's a recent development. It all mostly stems back to a fiction book that was popular in the 70s.

[exnihilo]

But you do it again. I actually said that it seemed all you DID know was about the Catholic church - apparently the opposite of what I you derived from my post. And, I assure you, I'm not just long words, they have substance and they are based on actual knowledge.

[joe]

But exnihilo, knowledge that a religion's central tenet is an benevolent, omiscient etc god is enough to criticise it! You don't need to understand all the subtle aspects beyond that, as they are meaningless if based on a fundamental untruth. There has been lots of reasonable argumentation on this thread.

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]novium wrote on 12:36, 9th Jan 2005:I don't think so. I know it is very popular right now to accuse Catholics of having been in league with the nazis, but you know, that's a recent development. It all mostly stems back to a fiction book that was popular in the 70s.


The Catholic Church's assistance to the Nazis is well documented and accepted as fact by most historians. From the "centre of the Vatican" downwards, assistance was offered, especially in the choas after the fall of Berlin, to get Nazis out from under the impending War crimes Trials. That assistance came especially in affording them hiding places in the necklace of monasteries running all the way south to Italy. And then out to the large German communities in Argentina, f'rinstance.

Not that they were alone in this. It was actually done in co-operation with the United States who'd already had difficulties identifying the scumbags, anti-Semites and genocidal SOB's in the conflict itself. Once into the concentration camps, Pennemunde and elsewhere, they decided that the personnel, scientific and medical investigations conducted were much too useful to ignore. With the result that the likes of Werner von Braun and Klaus Barbie, for example, first appeared on wanted lists. And then mysteriously disappeared from same lists and were smuggled out to the States. Along with packing cases of evidence, experiments and scientific data garnered from the Death Camps. And all shipped back to the States for further research.
The operation was known as Operation Paperclip as a result of all individuals of interest having their files tagged together with a paper clip for convenient identification. Like someone said, anyone giving aid and succour to those bastards has an awful lot to answer for.