What is the appeal of attacking Christianity?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.

The basic issues are inherently insoluble.

Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."

Religion, and Christianity in particular, answers the "why" with certitude -- "because God loves me." However, no positive proof can be proferred for this belief system. One can say that the "Big Bang" had to come from somewhere, but data is clearly lacking.

Both belief systems (which science is, though it is clearly NOT a religion) proceed from largely irreconcilable premises.

So why, having decided for yourself that a lack of verifiable data/proof indicates non-existence, does it become important to hammer someone of the opposite view -- as opposed to noting that you simply disagree with their premise? What exactly constitues the "threat?"


I would assert that the fact that some individuals take their belief too far is cause for wariness -- fanatics can be disconcerting -- but why assume that those of the differing opinion support the most fanatical of those who share their basic system of belief? It's not as though a fanatical "science at all costs" type is any less dangerous than a "my way or the inferno" religionist.

Oh well, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Seamus

[Geoffrey S]

There's no proof for either approach, either religion or not believing. Therefore attacking the other view on the basis of so-called facts is just as pointless for either case. Me, I don't believe in God yet, but it'd be nice to think that someday I will be able to.

[Al Khalifah]

Because Dan Brown told them to and it's 'cool' at the moment.

[Sjakihata]

Because Dan Brown told them to and it's 'cool' at the moment.

At the moment. It's quite a long moment. From The Era of Enlightenment, to Nietzsche, to Dan Brown (who ever he is).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no big why. It's all random and meaningless. People who believe, are just fooling themselves.

Well you have just shown your a closed minded person and exaclty what he was speaking of. Can you prove what you BELIEVE?

[aleh]

Meh, personaly, the only thing I have a beef against is 'organized religion'. Spirituality to me is a very powerful and personal thing, and is best experienced and understood alone, so organizing it and applying rules and laws to it, and making such and such thing a punishable sin, and etc etc etc...That's just bad.


And, despite being a spiritual person, I usually hover somewhere around agnostic and athiest. The idea of God as most people have it today, least most people that I know, is just...limited imho. Nowadays, it's almost political in nature, and again, that in my honest opinion detracts from the spiritual side.


I apologize if I offend, sorry for the typos, and please, debate me away.

[Moros]

Can you prove what you BELIEVE?

yes Gawain can you?

[lars573]

to Dan Brown (who ever he is).

The author of the DaVinci code, who claims that Jesus was a man and that he had children and that the Catholic church has been covering it up for the past 1500 years. And that the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks was decended from Jesus. Which is all horseshit most of Dan "facts" are based on lies, surealist bullshit, a mistake made by a Spainish scribe, and Leonardo Davinci's penchant for sticking efeminate men into some of his paintings.

What is the appeal of attacking Christianity?

Easy target what can I say. For 1500 years the church has claimed to be right in all things spiritual. So taking the piss out of the "faithfull" any chance you get is a good idea. Basically people who have no capacity for faith (like me) get bothered by religious types. And it really people like me when religious types try and impose their beliefs on everybody, so we attack them.

[English assassin]

@ al kalifah, the existence of secular rules is nothing to the point, since I expressly said we should formulate our own morality, not look for it in god. So deciding that we should not build structures over 6 foot in our gardens (not that that is PRIMARILY a moral issue...) is all fine with me. I'm not against rules I'm against rules that claim not to be human.

No, I didn't list good points in religion. I don't doubt that there are some, that it has been a comfort, and that it makes some people better people. My view is that the net balance is negative, which is not to say there are no positives.

But basically if it didn't get rammed down our throats (and outside this board I have to say it doesn't) I don't really care all that much.

[Sjakihata]

Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."

There is no big why. It's all random and meaningless. People who believe, are just fooling themselves.

[yesdachi]

There is no big why. It's all random and meaningless. People who believe, are just fooling themselves.

Or are People who don’t believe, just fooling themselves?


For me there isn’t much appeal for attacking Christianity but Christians on the other hand are fair game. As are any other religious practitioner that tries to push their belief system on others. In the grand scheme I probably fall into the Christian category but I cant stand anyone that pushes their dogma on others. Missionary work in s. America, leave them alone ! Would you like to join our bible study? Why your interpretations are always unquestionable ! These closed minded and often hypocritical people are the easiest to make fun of and to get riled . If I were of another religion and was faced with these people I would want to attack Christianity too. It is another case of the few making the majority look bad.

[Aenlic]

In my case it's possibly because my maternal grandparents were from Seville and Granada, so I have a repressed Moorish heritage or some such making me rather anti-Christian. And on my father's side of the family most were refugees from the Rheinhessen to America during the great Auswanderung of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, which was the direct result of the tragedy and insanity of the religious 30 Years' War. Or perhaps it's because some on the paternal side of the family just happened to come from Carcassonne and Toulouse, which maybe accounts for a certain pent-up repressed Cathar seeking revenge on the woman-killing, child-killing rapists and pillagers of the Albigensian Crusade who called themselves Christians.

Then again, maybe I just have trouble understanding why people choose to believe in superstitions, constructed religions and other nonsense and have such a seemingly deep-seated need to be mothered by a nebulous, unprovable Something-Greater-And-More-Important-Than-Them to give meaning to their lives.

[English assassin]

Personally I am equal opportunities in my belief that religion is a poison. I wouldn't single out the christians.

I don't, personally, much care if people think God loves them. That's fine. If religion consisted of believing in God and thinking he loved you I would shut up.

What I mainly object to is religions that claim that you have to behave in such and such a way (which is to say, all religions). Locating moral and ethical standards in religion is bad . Most importantly, it stunts human growth. We can formulate moral and ethical standards of our own. We ought not to need a supernatural instruction to tell us to be good, or what being good means. This is like having legs but preferring to crawl rather than walk, because we think God will transport us where we need to go. rather than thinking how we should act we look it up in a book.

I also find it rather implausible that a being like God would give a moral framework to us. Its a bit like humans having a view on how an amoeba should behave.

Secondarily, looking at the sweep of history, has religion contributed positively or negatively to the sum total of human happiness? The crusades, the inquisition, oppression, the holocaust, superstition, hellfire preachers....

Thirdly its just all so silly, and patently made up out of a desire for a father figure to remove the burden of choice from us. Its an infantile regression, really. I'd be equally opposed to adults sucking their thumbs or pooping their underpants too.

[Sjakihata]

I'd be equally opposed to adults sucking their thumbs or pooping their underpants too.

Some 'adults' actually enjoy behaving like a baby. I don't know what it is called, but I know it exist.

[Aenlic]

Some 'adults' actually enjoy behaving like a baby. I don't know what it is called, but I know it exist.

Infantilism. The second funniest episode of CSI was devoted to it. The funniest episode was devoted to furries and plushies.

[Al Khalifah]

What I mainly object to is religions that claim that you have to behave in such and such a way

Society claims you have to behave in a certain way too. There are far more laws imposed on your behavior by the secular government than there are by the Church - the secular western governments by the way basing their morality on the foundation principles of Christianity it must be added. I forget where in the Bible it says you cannot construct a permanent structure in your garden over 6ft tall without permission, where it says you cannot exceed a certain speed on the roads, where it says you have to pay 40% of your income back in tax to the state.

I don't think religion has a monopoly in dictating to you how you live your life. The only difference is that religion is optional.

We can formulate moral and ethical standards of our own. We ought not to need a supernatural instruction to tell us to be good, or what being good means.

Instead we rely on punishment in this life rather than the next. The supernatural omnipresent dispenser of justice in the west in the police, the hell is prison. The difference between Christianity and secular law is that Christianity asks that you don't commit offences and that you try to be a nice person, where as secular law doesn't care how much of a monster you are as long as you stick to the rules and you don't get caught.

This is like having legs but preferring not to crawl rather than walk,

We have cars that can go 140mph easily, but the state tells you that you cannot exceed 70mph. Why are you obeying them? They're just telling you how to live your life, are they not restricting your freedom?

Secondarily, looking at the sweep of history, has religion contributed positively or negatively to the sum total of human happiness? The crusades, the inquisition, oppression, the holocaust, superstition, hellfire preachers

Nice impartial list there, list no good points. Also, how is the holocaust a negative point for religion? The Nazi part was a secular power acting AGAINST religion in their suppression of not just the Jewish faith, but also the Catholic Church. Speak to Jewish survivors of the holocaust, they will tell you that without their faith and the sense of brotherhood and unity it gave those in the concentration camps, they could not have made it. Religion does not have the monopoly on oppression.

[Adrian II]

What I mainly object to is religions that claim that you have to behave in such and such a way (which is to say, all religions).

That comes closest to my own objection. I don't object to religiously inspired ideas or rules of behaviour as long as they are justified in rational terms, not religious ones. For instance I agree with Christians that killing my neighbour is bad, but I do not agree that it is bad because of a divine proscription. It is bad because its ultimate consequence is the disintegration of the society I live in.

My daily life is guided by many notions and rules that have religious origins and so is the life of the society I live in. l do not mind a bit because the large majority of those rules and notions are perfectly reasonable and even -- 'God forbid' -- civilised. I would mind, though, if my government decided to introduce laws because 'God wants us to'. I would demand to see God's affidavit.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

yes Gawain can you?

Well then as the smartest man in the world maybe you can enlighten the rest of us poor bastards.

[PanzerJaeger]

People who attack Christianity enjoy the anti-establishment aspect of it. There is also a lot of youthful rebellion and "Im smarter than my parents" thinking in the anti-Christian movement. Immaturity is probably the biggest factor that leads people to attack Christians.

[Geoffrey S]

It certainly works both ways though; Christians can be just as vehement and rhetorical when it comes to non-believers. It'd be nice if both groups could realise how ridiculous it looks to attack the other view's lack of evidence, when that exact same argument can be applied to either side of the debate.

[Moros]

Well then as the smartest man in the world maybe you can enlighten the rest of us poor bastards.

well I could try but you all probably wouldn't understand me but you avoided the question: Can you proof what you believe.
you said we couldn't prove we're wrong but so can't you. I just posted this not because I was waiting for an awsering but to show you this is't a good argument.
It's like saying: can you prove that only one line can go trough 2 certain points.

finnaly my intellect gets credit

[sharrukin]

well I could try but you all probably wouldn't understand me but you avoided the question: Can you proof what you believe.
you said we couldn't prove we're wrong but so can't you. I just posted this not because I was waiting for an awsering but to show you this is't a good argument.
It's like saying: can you prove that only one line can go trough 2 certain points.

finnaly my intellect gets credit

The difference is that Christians admit it is just a matter of faith.

Is what you believe nothing more than a matter of faith?
If so, then how is that different from a religion?

If on the other hand, you think it is different from a religion, then step forward with some proof for your claims.

[Pindar]

That comes closest to my own objection. I don't object to religiously inspired ideas or rules of behaviour as long as they are justified in rational terms, not religious ones. For instance I agree with Christians that killing my neighbour is bad, but I do not agree that it is bad because of a divine proscription. It is bad because its ultimate consequence is the disintegration of the society I live in.

My daily life is guided by many notions and rules that have religious origins and so is the life of the society I live in. l do not mind a bit because the large majority of those rules and notions are perfectly reasonable and even -- 'God forbid' -- civilised. I would mind, though, if my government decided to introduce laws because 'God wants us to'. I would demand to see God's affidavit.

Any system that makes coercive appeal needs to be able to justify the claim. In a secular society referencing God alone as the basis for legislation does not pass muster.

Attacks on faith typically reveal more about the labeler than what they attempt to label.

That is so true. And the same can be said about attacks on 'the left'.

The standard doesn't apply when the system's advocates don't bath regularly, hold a stable job or have an accent.
Bohemianism and the nanny state are there own refutation.

[Petrus]

I do not think this is specificaly dedicated to christians, it is only due to the fact that the diferent categorys of christianism are the most known religions in countries where mockery of religion is not a crime.

Just take the point of view of a man that does not believe concerning, for example, some of the catholic rituals.

For example, during the mass, the believers eat a piece of bred that is supposed to be both their god's flesh an man flesh.

Litteraly speaking, this is a cannibal ritual.

So how could a person that does not believe in catholic christianism observe this without feeling horror, disgust or the wish to mock?

This is but an example without intend to harm no one, but it can make you understand the point of view of an outsider of a formally organized sect concerning this sect activities.

Globaly what you see as attacks are much more qualified as mockerys and attempts to show the absurdity of rituals and religious morals - still, from the point of view of non believers.

[Phatose]

It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.

The basic issues are inherently insoluble.

Evolution, Science, and Rationality in general cannot explain the "why" behind existence. Despite the power of science to describe and validate much of what has happened since, the origin of things boils down to "it just happened."

Religion, and Christianity in particular, answers the "why" with certitude -- "because God loves me." However, no positive proof can be proferred for this belief system. One can say that the "Big Bang" had to come from somewhere, but data is clearly lacking.

Both belief systems (which science is, though it is clearly NOT a religion) proceed from largely irreconcilable premises.

So why, having decided for yourself that a lack of verifiable data/proof indicates non-existence, does it become important to hammer someone of the opposite view -- as opposed to noting that you simply disagree with their premise? What exactly constitues the "threat?"


I would assert that the fact that some individuals take their belief too far is cause for wariness -- fanatics can be disconcerting -- but why assume that those of the differing opinion support the most fanatical of those who share their basic system of belief? It's not as though a fanatical "science at all costs" type is any less dangerous than a "my way or the inferno" religionist.

Oh well, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Seamus

Do you really feel Christianity limits itself to answering the "Why?". Much of the trouble likely stems from Christianity not merely answering Why, but then proceeding to answer what and how.

[Pindar]

It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.

Attacks on faith typically reveal more about the labeler than what they attempt to label.

[Adrian II]

Attacks on faith typically reveal more about the labeler than what they attempt to label.

That is so true. And the same can be said about attacks on 'the left'.

[Spetulhu]

It has always struck me as odd that some of (not all) the folks who doubt the existence of God take such joy in attacking defenders of that belief, and Christians in particular.

Because people in the west are mainly christians, and we have the kind of living standard where you can let go of old superstitions? The drug-induced dreams of today are better than those of some hashish-smoking guys dead for 2000 years? People LIKE to tell others how superior they are, no matter what they base that feeling on?

[ichi]

Wow

So when did you stop beating your wife?

The whole premise of this is so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to begin. Like the question above, the whole idea that non-believers must attack religion for some unknown reason just perpetuates the persecution complex.

First, to lump science and religion together as though science is just another myth is a big part of the problem. Science can provide many deeper answers, eventually it will, unless it is derailed by theologians (as occurred in the dark ages).

Second, most folks that I know of don't go about attacking religion. In my experience they are reacting to some religious imperative. Like this thread.

The 'threat' as you put it, is when fundamentists from any religion assume that the light shines brighter on them then the rest of us, and try to control the lives of others.

Look, if you want to believe that some guy sits on high passing judgment on all of us and will someday return and make things all better, go ahead. Just don't try to foist your beliefs on the rest of us.

This persecution thing seems to be part of the whole deal.

ichi

[Crazed Rabbit]

For instance I agree with Christians that killing my neighbour is bad, but I do not agree that it is bad because of a divine proscription. It is bad because its ultimate consequence is the disintegration of the society I live in.

So, if you could kill your neighbor without consequences for yourself, it wouldn't be bad?

Religions, with few exceptions, are judging outsiders harshly and doesn't allow external criticism. The undemocratic approach to powerstructure also doesn't allow any practical way of reformation, which would allowing the religion adapt to changes. In many cases religion is used as an excuse to commit crimes, atrocities and violent actions against the outside society.
These facts makes a democratic and secular viewer less tolerant against the religion and it's follower.

One of those exceptions is Catholicism, in that they do not say that everyone who isn't Catholic is going to burn in hellfire. As to reform, ever heard of Vatican II? And in the past hundred years (at least) Christianity has not been used as a basis for any crimes.

The only reason secular gov'ts don't like it is because they want to claim supreme authority, that they can decide what is best.

Christianity--indeed most if not all organized religion--promotes ignorance. As a man of knowledge, I find that loathesome.

Ah...dur..that must explain people like St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope John Paul II.

Many of us are pissed by their self-righteousness.

You're pissed because people believe strongly in something that you don't? Or because Christianity states that man is not all knowing, incapable of finding truth alone, and you don't want to have your judgement questioned?

Crazed Rabbit