Christianity is a false religion

Atheism is no more than a lack of belief that there is a god.

It says nothing about what man knows, or even COULD know.

Remember that religion is not the only source of philosophy, so your accusations about pathetic philosophy simply do not apply.

Also, religion means a whole lot more than a belief in god. It is a system of faith and worship. Atheism has no "faith" or "worship" or "system" in the sense of religion, though atheists may ascribe to various sources of philosophy.

 

Agnosticism is about "I don't know and I don't care." Atheism is a man made belief therefore it is the epitomy of "Religion". Jesus had much to say about the religious leaders of His day.
No....Atheism is about "faith" that there is no God. Whereas Christianity hinges on "In the beginning God created.....", Atheism hinges on "everything is happenstance. The holy trinity of evolution is matter, time, and chance. Those are the three you worship. No logic there. Philosophy is man created. Who created matter?

 

There is NOTHING "man made" about atheism.

Plus, not even religion requires a belief in god, as can be seen today in some religions. Religion is a system of faith and worship. It doesn't imply a god, though belief in a god is present in many religions. YOUR religion may prescribe a god, but that's not a requirement for religion.

So, atheism doesn't have faith and it doesn't have worship. Atheists may look to other sources for philosophy.

---

As for this universe, YOU can always say "god did it" - an answer applicable to absolutely EVERY bit of matter, energy or moment, with zero ability to test.

I don't find the "god did it" answer satisfactory. It's a totally useless answer, as it doesn't say anything about what could happen next, what could be found next, or how this universe works - and it gets applied without ANY justification, as there is no way to tell what is a natural aspect of how things work and what some all powerful being simply did.

When we don't know, the answer is "we don't know". Even scientists who are Christian believe that this is the correct answer.

 

There is a difference between believing something is true or false, and claiming it outright that it is true or false. When I state that I believe that I am following my religion correctly, I am expressing an opinion. If I state that I believe that someone else is wrongly following a religion, that too indicates an opinion. Were I to say my religion is right and all others are wrong, now I am stating this as a position of fact, which it is not, since it can neither be proven nor disproven. But it is not stated as fact as the OP made his statement.

The OP is making his claims as if his criteria is the only criteria for what makes sense or decides what is a true or false religion. At no point does he claim that "I think" this or that is what should validate a religion as true. We can all certainly have our opinion as to whether or not a religion (and all subdivisions thereof) is true or false, but when one tries to make the claim of true or false as a matter of factual reality, I will call them out on it.

 

I agree with the points of atheism is not a religion and that a given religion does not require a deity. But atheism is as much belief based as any religion or spirituality. And that is because the reality of the matter can not be proven nor disproven. Thus we can only believe whether a religion is correct or false, or even that all are false. But it is still belief. The only person who does not believe one way or another, is the person who has not been exposed to the idea of religion. Once exposed to any idea, especially the more abstract ones, one then forms a belief about it.

 

You do claim to know.....it is all happenstance. There is no purpose to it all.

 

Religion comes with beliefs, customs of worship, etc.

Atheism has NONE of that. It's exactly the same as if there were no religions on Earth.

It's no more of a religion that NOT being a Christian or NOT being a Hindu, or whatever.

NOT being something can not be considered a faith in the sense of religion.

Think about it. NOT being a Christian says NOTHING AT ALL about who you are or what you believe. In fact, subscribing to Christian religion means a LOT more than just believing in a god. Religion is MORE than that.

There are LOTS of gods worshiped on Earth today. I'm fine with you picking one to worship. I choose not to pick one.

I wouldn't care about it being suggested that I have a religion, even though that is BS. BUT, once people think I have a religion, they immediately start making up crap that they insist I must believe!! It's far better to just point out that atheism is NOT A RELIGION.

 

I think you are making a few false assumptions. Atheism could be defined as a belief that anything supernatural does not exist. Atheists do still have beliefs, and usually not just about religion. In fact, many of the social, ideological, and political beliefs held by many atheists have been compared to a religion.

I think there's a tendency in humanity to naturally flock to religion. If it's not explicitly religion in the supernatural sense, it will be some other form of "religion", like many activists are.

We could say that is also true in the metaphysical and figurative sense.

 

You babble. I talk science... let me ask you... what does the THIRD LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS describe? Get an engineering degree and get back to us. By the way, we can see light. Atoms have nothing to do with light.

 

Do I claim to know the origin of this universe? No! There are a few basic families of ideas on how it could happen, which share the principle that they would result in what we see today. One of those ideas is that god did it. But we can not know until we can detect evidence - which we can not detect today.

Purpose doesn't come from there being gravity or light or whatever. It comes from humans.

If you're interested in current theoretical ideas on the source of this universe, I would strongly suggest the following as it directly addresses this.

Dr. Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicists who is always open to considering God as a primary actor, ignoring those who sometimes claim that science must reject any discussion of god.

So, God is one of the theories of the creation of the universe that he considers.

The heart of his discussion of the origins of the universe starts soon after the 14 minute mark.

 

Yes, people are ALWAYS trying to claim atheism is a religion.

But, the fact is that it is NOT a religion.

Considerations of our universe don't suddenly cause atheism to be a religion.

 

Your belief that there is no God (something you pretend to know) requires faith that matter appeared out of nothing by "happenstance". Your custom is to try and disprove Christianity. That would be like me spending time trying to disprove the existence of Peter Pan.....something I don't believe in. Why would I bother? Your worship is that you are not accountable to a higher power.

 

No, your assumption is wrong.

Please watch the explanation in post #60.

Without that, please do not try to claim what I consider to be possible.

Your notion of "worship" is silly.

 

I would suggest you read at least the 1st Chapter of John Macarthur's book "The Battle for the Beginning". One thing I found real interesting is how he explains the motivation of believing the way you do. He uses a very logical argument.

 

I am monumentally NOT interested in what others want to claim my "motivation" to be.

This author does recognize that his flat out denial of science is not accepted as a Christian principle.

Again, please consider the site I posted for a better understanding of what those studying cosmology have found.

Dr. Carroll is especially careful with identifying what is known and what is not known in the physics of cosmology.



You should at least know what physicists are saying. You will be better armed with that knowledge.

 

This is a moot point in practice. If I claim that something is outright true or false, then that includes that I believe it to be true or false. If I caveat my certainty of the matter by qualifying a statement that it is just my opinion, then it is unclear to the extent that I may or may not be swayed by argument to change my opinion. So it seems thus far in reading your response that your main complaint is that Canell left no room to be persuaded by argument that the premise of his thread is what is in fact false.

My interpretation that it is a moot point relies upon the fact that regardless of the lack of a caveat in Canell's assertion, others are free to counter-argue all the points they care to make about the subject. And if this is your primary counter-argument, that Canell made his assertions without the prefix of something like, "In my opinion,...", or, "It's my belief that...." then your complaint seems nothing more than taking umbrage with this member's lack of some form of humility, or, at least care, to be - what you would prefer as a matter of being more circumspect or delicate when discussing the wildly contentious issue of religion in any general form whatsoever, and especially when discussing the specific character of one particular religion.

This forum provides a place to have dialog and there are various flavors of the dialogs that occur here.

I like the serious sort of dialogs where folks discuss stuff in pursuit of knowing the truth about something, and these types of dialogs do occur here.

This particular area of the site is one that I have long avoided, with a few exceptions, as it is fraught with emotions that run perhaps even deeper than politics, but are full of very similar considerations that lack any need to have the dialog based on facts.

I am presently of the mind that it might be entertaining to me to participate in these religion dialogs, and by entertaining, I also mean educational, hopefully for myself and possibly for others.

Which of the first 6 enumerated points in the OP do you disagree with, in as far as they capture some of the characteristics of Christianity, that are carried forth as truth to its adherents?

I do see your point if perhaps it includes that Canell did not define what a true religion might possibly be, but his OP infers that he believes a religion should not be promoting the criticisms he cites with respect to Christianity. All of his complaints about it are well known to me and whether acknowledged as drawbacks by its adherents, are basically factual statements of prominent features of the religion.

I disagree, again, it seems as though you are asserting your thoughts with respect to a very subtle feature of our language.

What if you stated to someone that you *are* following your religion correctly, skipping inclusion of that you simply *believed* that to be the case?
Would that alone be sufficient to inform someone that you were stating a fact rather than an opinion?
I think it is mostly accurately and widely accepted these days that anyone that says anything about anything is generally only asserting his or her opinion.
This phenomenon is even creeping into mathematics, there was at least one thread on this fact here at PF, the fact that there are opponents now to math tests with only one correct answer.

Either way, here in this format, no one would likely find any folks that would shy away from engaging in dialog about the topic.

I mean, absolutely, I agree with the point that in face to face dialogs of this nature, it massively helps to lubricate the conversation with at least some sort of veneer of self-reflection by using such qualifications as "I believe" or "To me anyway", etc...

***
Apologies for so many words, I seem to have a bit of an objection to what seems to me is your objection to this thread, but I can't quite "place-my-finger-on-what-it-is".

***
I think there are factual characteristics of particular religions that adherents of those religions must abide by to successfully claim to follow them.

As far as Christianity goes, well, I reckon it is well documented that in order to conform with its precepts you have no chance of getting into heaven if you so much as even own your own house. Folks can spin the actual text in the new testament anyway they want, but the text itself is crystal clear - a camel has a better chance of fitting itself through the eye of a needle than a rich man has of entering the kingdom of heaven. So, in fact if anyone has been unfortunate enough to have been born in the US, or even worse, in Iceland or Luxembourg, well, your mission awaits you probably best in Africa, as it presently represents nations with the most candidates that might possibly get past the first test to enter the Christian kingdom of heaven.

***
And Christianity, as documented in the new testament, requires, absolutely, requires this level of financial sacrifice.

Ananias and Sapphira - you are familiar with this brilliant piece of Christianity?

 

No, it’s not.

 

In several places, Jesus lays out what it means to walk the walk and the importance of doing so. And, it's clear that as a Christian society we are not living up to that today. I Include myself, as this aspect of the philosophy brought to us by Jesus is important.

I'm not so sure that these passages require the magnitude of sacrifice you point to, though.

We can live in a manner demonstrated by Jesus as he helped those who need help, advocated for non violence, eschewed amassing wealth, etc.

Do you really believe that the message is that we who live in "normal" homes must sell and give away everything we own lest we go to hell?

 

It is not, imo, dependent upon my interpretation, dependent upon whether or not I believe that the text means what the words themselves mean.

It is possibly the religion that could have saved the world, but if you read it, it does require extremely ascetic sacrifices.

It is a coherent and constant theme, even and extremely more-so than even such an ascetic religion as Taoism, which actually is pretty mild compared to stuff like the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

 

It does come with at least one belief; that there are no deities. That is a belief, pure and simple

That would be a strawman since I specifically stated that atheism is not a religion. Do I need to quote it for you?

Another strawman since I never claimed this about atheism. I think you are trying to conflate my arguments and position with others who do claim it is a religion.

And that's all well and good. And that can be looked at in a couple of ways. You could believe in the existence or one or more deities and have chosen not to follow/worship any of them. Or you believe that no deities exist. But both are beliefs. Not faith, not religion, but still belief.

Again, I point out that I specifically stated that atheism is not a religion. But I am with you on this aspect. I am Christian. I'm not Catholic, or Methodist, or Mormon, or Baptist or any denomination. And I have my own beliefs as to what my religion entails. And I have far too often run into people who are claiming what I am and am not supposed to believe. I'm in a polygamous marriage with a husband and two wives. Many want to claim that I can't be Christian because of that. I have many other beliefs that will clash with what other Christians believe. That's their problem. And I have no issue with what anyone wants to believe. I know the reality is that these beliefs can't be proved nor disproved. My only statement about atheism is that atheists also believe, because the issue of whether or not there is this deity or that or none at all is a belief.

 

That is incorrect. A belief in the non existence of any deities (for atheism must denounce them all, and not just one, otherwise it would not be a-theism) does not require any position of what comes from where. It is as valid to hold a position of "I don't know" as to claim a source. Science doesn't claim all the answers. It is simply a method by which to obtain answers when one can

That is not a worship. Trying to apply your framework to another's beliefs, including the belief that deities do not exist, does not mean that those others actually use that framework.

 

No worries on that. I have been there. And on the brief I do get what you are saying. I wanted to respond with a brief note to say I'm not ignoring the whole of the post, but at this time I've not got a lot of time. Kids and grandkids visiting for my dad's b-day (yes 4 generations together!). I would like to give your post its proper due. But if it and time get lost in the shuffle, then I apologize in advance.

 

This is an excellent point. It is, imo, the distinguishing feature between an atheist and an agnostic.

I unfortunately due to limitations apparently of little interest to modern sociology with respect to creating a more granular definition of religious affiliations, am mostly classified as an agnostic.

But, I have a caveat to this classification. I believe to the extent that it is a passionately enough held belief to qualify just very shyly of the same truth I place in the fact that in a DC circuit loop of 24 Volts, a 250 Ohm resistor will result in 96 mA of current: there absolutely is more about all of truth and reality than we know, that places everything into question, as to explain 74,000,000 plus votes for Trump in 2020....

 

One of my fave Houston Phrases: Gotcha!

 

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law: ask any follower of Trump.... Or apparently of Christ, in certain Tribes in the US. Or, do something magnificent in your pursuit of such a thing, like Jimmy Page accomplished....