10 Reasons why I'm not a christian.

[pikeamus]

In no particular order:

1. There is neither evidence to suggest that there is, nor a conceivable mechanism within the current best scientific paradigm for, any such thing as an immortal soul (given that the soul is supposed to contain, to some extent, our identity). The soul is absolutely integral to the philosophy of Christianity, without it the whole doctrine falls apart.


2. There is insufficient historical or archaeological evidence to conclude that Christian scripture accurately depicts the history of the region it supposedly describes. In fact there is evidence to suggest that the Old Testament is inaccurate historically. Nor is there sufficient evidence to suggest that the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels is accurate. (a)(b)


3. There are inconsistencies and contradictions within scripture. The best explanations for these by Christian apologists are still more complex and seem less likely than saying that the scripture is just a composition of legends from various, eminently fallible, human authors.(c)


4. The concept of loving interventionist god is incompatible with the inherently dangerous and hostile world in which we live. Especially in light of evolution, the rather brutal mechanism by which we arrived in our current forms. Again, the best arguments from apologists are much more complex than it simply being a false proposition.


5. The understanding of scripture is constantly being refined to fit in accordance with science. For example: genesis is now thought by most to be a non-literal passage whereas before it was shown scientifically to not be the case it was asserted that genesis was literally true. Similarly see Galileo. If this book was supposed to be a guide for gods children then surely it could have been written in such a way that it was clear which parts were to be taken metaphorically and which parts literally.


6. The god of the bible is constantly called good (even omnibenevolant) but displays an extremely immoral nature. The standard response is something like "God?s standard is not the same as human standards" which would be fine except that words like "good" apply to the human concept of good. If god?s concept is different use a different word (though I suppose it would be less emotionally appealing to say "God is bleurgh"). A more sensible explanation, in my eyes, would be that God was designed in the image of man and so is at times as immoral and tribal as those that told the stories.


7. The incredibly provincial nature of the supposed salvation points to the narrow mindedness of those that constructed the legends. God (apparently) decides the best way to save us all and to enlighten us all of his presence is to send his son to one small part of the middle east in a time when the population is largely illiterate and ignorant, where the words and deeds of his son are not going to be accurately recorded, or recorded at all until years after his death. There are parts of the world where still, despite the contagious spread of Christianity, people are not aware of Jesus.


8. The fact that god is always referred using masculine personal pronouns. Part of a wider issue that God appears to hate women or at the very least to think they are lesser humans than men. This appears to be strong evidence that scripture was simply written by men looking to codify their existing beliefs and prejudices.(d)


9. The sheer scale and size of the universe and the arrogance then that is present when we assert that God made it for humans, or more generally, for life. The universe is unimaginably vast and the parts of it that are suitable for life, much less human life, are such a tiny proportion that it seems ridiculous to suggest that the universe has a purpose and that purpose is humanity or life.


10. The clear progression from earlier religions and philosophies of the relevant region into the theology and mythology of Christianity. If Christian theology was divinely inspired it would be incredibly unlikely that the progression of ideas would fit so neatly within the social progression of the regions from which it originated. This is very indicative that Christianity is a human construct.(e)


These reasons apply in a very similar way to other theistic religions

(a) http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
(b) http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html
(c) http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/biblecontra.html
(d) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Does-Hate-Wo.../dp/0826498264
(e) http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-West.../dp/0415078547

(References are a start point only, for example Russell?s book does not treat at all comprehensively with the issue mentioned but it does give some context for the point overall. I have yet to read any book that treats directly with that point so can?t reference one but if anyone has a good suggestion I?d love to read it. The multiple links to Ebon Musing are mostly because the site is very well organised so it was easy for me to find the articles and it uses many references itself so further reading is available.

Disclaimer: I did not intend this post to start a major debate of the individual points raised; it was written in response to the thread ?Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour?? but grew so long it seemed sensible to give it its own thread. I?m sure that these ideas have been presented in a flawed way and would be happy to revise my points in the light of criticism. This is really just something I was pondering while at work and typed up between customers.)

[r0gue6]

My 1 reason I am not a Christian.

1. There is no God.

[Blindead]

Fantastic post bro.

[jf1]

my reason?
because the abrahamic god and christianty are obvious hoaxes.

[user5145]

I agree on all points.

[tp90]

god show me the way cause the devils tryna break me down

[tp90]

Jesus walks -

[GrokTheCube]

Good post, repped

[neekz0r]

... you forgot that the Christian god is both logically inconsistent and recycled from previous deities much older then Christiandom.

[LordDarwin]

Good post and agreed on all counts.

[mug]

Good stuff pikeamus. Wheres the theists in this thread ?

[neekz0r]

Good stuff pikeamus. Wheres the theists in this thread ?

Right here.

[Rune]

so everyone can see for real what a pompous ignoramus you really are.

[pikeamus]

some random stuff

I lol'd pretty hard.

To the rest of you, thanks for the comments.

[Barry Bonds]

If you had all that evidence you still wouldn't be a Christian.

Why do I say that? History.

Not everyone who walked with Jesus believed. Peter saw the dead raised, blind given sight, lepers cured, walking on water, ect.

Yet he still denied Christ three times.

History says hundreds saw Jesus after the resurrection. But they all didn't believe. Proof doesn't guarantee acceptance.

I use the old adage. Go up to every smoker you see and ask them if they believe smoking causes cancer and will kill you. 90% of them will say they do, but they're still smoking.

That's why I find Hitchens vs. Craig vs. Dawkins amusing. It doesn't matter who wins or loses. God isn't proved or disproved by debate. And no one is converted or deconverted by listening to it.

[Rogesi]

it is obviouls you don't have and education.

7/10

[SumblimeStyle]

It is obviouls you don't have and education. And you haven't had courses in Logic or Philosophy or Epistemology as it relates to Science and the scientific method.

You are trying to dismiss the soul with an assertion of materialism/solipsism/postivism.

The soul doesn't fit your inadequate and unscientific extension of what you call the "current best scientific paradigm" because the physical sciences have no means to contend with it.

Where does GOOD, EVIL, JUSTICE, etc., fit into your "current paradigm"? What is their atomic weight?, molecular structure?, what do they smell like?, what color are they? what do they sound like?

Grow up, get an education - A REAL EDUCATION - and not just a piece of paper from a diploma factory run by left-wing bigots.

All your other points are fallacious. Try posting something like that for discussion at an Ivy League university, and put your real name on it, so everyone can see for real what a pompous ignoramus you really are.

lol. i go to an ivy league and that list looks fine to me

[AKR]

If you had all that evidence you still wouldn't be a Christian.

Why do I say that? History.

Not everyone who walked with Jesus believed. Peter saw the dead raised, blind given sight, lepers cured, walking on water, ect.

Yet he still denied Christ three times.

History says hundreds saw Jesus after the resurrection. But they all didn't believe. Proof doesn't guarantee acceptance.

I use the old adage. Go up to every smoker you see and ask them if they believe smoking causes cancer and will kill you. 90% of them will say they do, but they're still smoking.

That's why I find Hitchens vs. Craig vs. Dawkins amusing. It doesn't matter who wins or loses. God isn't proved or disproved by debate. And no one is converted or deconverted by listening to it.

Great argument. The Bible says we won't believe anyway, so that means it's true and you can dismiss all of his other points.

A pant load, as usual. Plenty of people are converted by debates. I know a number of people who are atheists because of debates in here, and one particular pissed off atheist who converted because of me. You know it's true or you wouldn't be in here DEBATING about it.

It is obviouls you don't have and education. And you haven't had courses in Logic or Philosophy or Epistemology as it relates to Science and the scientific method.

Grow up, get an education - A REAL EDUCATION - and not just a piece of paper from a diploma factory run by left-wing bigots.

Try posting something like that for discussion at an Ivy League university, and put your real name on it, so everyone can see for real what a pompous ignoramus you really are.

Wow strong ad hominems. Why don't you give him one of your long ass book lists to read so he can get a "real" education.

[Axramon]

It is obviouls you don't have and education. And you haven't had courses in Logic or Philosophy or Epistemology as it relates to Science and the scientific method.

You are trying to dismiss the soul with an assertion of materialism/solipsism/postivism.

The soul doesn't fit your inadequate and unscientific extension of what you call the "current best scientific paradigm" because the physical sciences have no means to contend with it.

Where does GOOD, EVIL, JUSTICE, etc., fit into your "current paradigm"? What is their atomic weight?, molecular structure?, what do they smell like?, what color are they? what do they sound like?

Grow up, get an education - A REAL EDUCATION - and not just a piece of paper from a diploma factory run by left-wing bigots.

All your other points are fallacious. Try posting something like that for discussion at an Ivy League university, and put your real name on it, so everyone can see for real what a pompous ignoramus you really are.

Typical. This is exactly the load of Ad Homonem ****e that is always used as a response.
You've read those points, not thinking about them, but about how to best reject them, regardless of their quality or lack of it.

[ripper6]

7/10

Thank you prig.

[ripper6]

Why don't you give him one of your long ass book lists to read so he can get a "real" education.

Since you asked:

Books for Atheists


http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusio...8936392&sr=8-1
Product Description
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement?one that now includes much of the scientific community.

?The attack on traditional religious thought,? writes David Berlinski in The Devil?s Delusion, ?marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.?

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community?s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God?s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be?indeed must be?the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.


http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Ath...8936528&sr=1-1
Product Description
A perceptive examination of modern day atheism, this book challenges the argument that religion and reason are fundamentally at odds?a contention made by three prominent scholars on atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. While other religious apologetics have challenged atheism on theological or biblical grounds, this book fights fire with fire, disproving the scholars' logic through modern, secular reason. Rigorously documented and supported by hard factual data, this careful analysis is critical reading for any religious person seeking to rebut the assertions of new atheists and essential information for any open-minded atheist who wants his beliefs to stand on firm ground.


http://www.amazon.com/Answering-New-...=13373EMD26E0K
Review
"It has been a great pleasure to me as a long-retired Professor of Philosophy to have been set the task of reading Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God by Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Benjamin Wiker. For this 'task' has been for me not a task but a sustained delight. Rarely, if ever, in my many years as a Professor of Philosphy did I ever have the opportunity to read such a compelling argument." -- Antony Flew, Author of There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

http://www.amazon.com/Greater-Than-Y...ref=pd_sim_b_3
Product Description
The recent runaway bestsellers God Is Not Great and The God Delusion have left Christians feeling defensive but not necessarily equipped to refute the accusations of nonbelievers. The bestsellers have also provoked those who are the fence about whether God exists, and if so, whether He's good. In his trademark elegant prose, Father Williams provides accessible but intellectually rich answers for both groups. Questions include "Isn't religion just another name for superstition (or magic or myth)?""If God is all-good and all-powerful, how can evil exist in the world?" and "Hasn't science disproved God's existence?" For believers and those searching for something to believe in, Father Williams offers an easy-to-use resource for building up one's own faith and igniting others'. Thomas D. Williams, LC, ThD, is Vatican Analyst for CBS News and a professor of theology at the ReginaApostolorumPontificalUniversity in Rome.


http://www.amazon.com/Old-Errors-Lab...8937291&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.com/ORTHODOXY-Gilb...8937436&sr=1-1

online free: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/o...orthodoxy.html
Chesterton is the greatest master of paradox to be found in the English language. This book is his masterpiece. It clears thinking on many points.

[ripper6]

Typical. This is exactly the load of Ad Homonem ****e that is always used as a response.
You've read those points, not thinking about them, but about how to best reject them, regardless of their quality or lack of it.

Why not address the main point?

"You are trying to dismiss the soul with an assertion of materialism/solipsism/postivism.

The soul doesn't fit your inadequate and unscientific extension of what you call the "current best scientific paradigm" because the physical sciences have no means to contend with it.

Where does GOOD, EVIL, JUSTICE, etc., fit into your "current paradigm"? What is their atomic weight?, molecular structure?, what do they smell like?, what color are they? what do they sound like?"

If he, you, or the others can't address the point, then you prove what I said. You are illogical, uneducated, and ignoramuses. Those aren't "ad hominems" they are accurate scientific observations.

[Axramon]

Why not address the main point?

"You are trying to dismiss the soul with an assertion of materialism/solipsism/postivism.

The soul doesn't fit your inadequate and unscientific extension of what you call the "current best scientific paradigm" because the physical sciences have no means to contend with it.

Where does GOOD, EVIL, JUSTICE, etc., fit into your "current paradigm"? What is their atomic weight?, molecular structure?, what do they smell like?, what color are they? what do they sound like?"

If he, you, or the others can't address the point, then you prove what I said. You are illogical, uneducated, and ignoramuses. Those aren't "ad hominems" they are accurate scientific observations.

I am actually in a very good education, and nothing in my post was illogical, so yes they were ad hominems, but arguing about that is a little retarded, so let's not.

[AKR]

Since you asked:

In b4 ban for your crappy book spam.

Those aren't "ad hominems" they are accurate scientific observations.

I love how people like you think it's not an ad hominem if you think your insults are true. You don't even know what an ad hominem is.


I'm going to stop wasting my time with you now.


Actually, I'd like to set up a formal debate with you sometime. That way, when you fail to post without insulting people, you'll be negged and/or banned.

[ripper6]

lol. i go to an ivy league and that list looks fine to me

Oh! Reeeeeally????

Which one? What courses have you had there on Logic, Philosophy, Scientific Method, Philosophy of Science, Archaeology, Biblical History, etc., etc.?

Quick give us the list of courses, and the texts assigned and recommended for those courses.

[ripper6]

In b4 ban for your crappy book spam.

The books aren't spam, they are legit books addressing the topics raised in the thread. And they are the books you requested that I post.

Don't complain when you step in your own sh**.

[ripper6]

Actually, I'd like to set up a formal debate with you sometime. That way, when you fail to post without insulting people, you'll be negged and/or banned.

I'd be happy to do it, but not here. It would be a live public debate.

[user5145]

Why not address the main point?

"You are trying to dismiss the soul with an assertion of materialism/solipsism/postivism.

The soul doesn't fit your inadequate and unscientific extension of what you call the "current best scientific paradigm" because the physical sciences have no means to contend with it.

Where does GOOD, EVIL, JUSTICE, etc., fit into your "current paradigm"? What is their atomic weight?, molecular structure?, what do they smell like?, what color are they? what do they sound like?"

If he, you, or the others can't address the point, then you prove what I said. You are illogical, uneducated, and ignoramuses. Those aren't "ad hominems" they are accurate scientific observations.

Good, evil, and justice are subjective cultural institutions.


Where is your evidence for the soul?

[neekz0r]

Where does GOOD, EVIL, JUSTICE, etc., fit into your "current paradigm"? What is their atomic weight?, molecular structure?, what do they smell like?, what color are they? what do they sound like?"

Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?

[ripper6]

I love how people like you think it's not an ad hominem if you think your insults are true. You don't even know what an ad hominem is.

All ten of the posters points are specious and lack logic. If you had studied logic you would have recognized that. Calling someone illogical because they are illogical might be taken as an insult but it is their subjective feeling vs. the actual case. If I said they were fat and therefore not to be believed then that would be a true ad hominem, because fatness has no logical bearing on the matter. But pointing out the person is illogical is not ad hominem.

I have studied at 4 different universities, including and ivy league school, and I can easily see that the posters ten points show a lack of education on those points. They are assertions and not logical educated conclusions. So their lack of education is manifest and they are ignorant of what they are talking about. What do you call someone who is ignorant and lacking in education?