CHRISTIANITY is EVIL!

[Mare Tranquillity]

You see no system is perfect. My job in this culture-social war is to advocate my own opinion of which is the better system which luckily for me is relatively easy no matter how muc collectivist scum attacks and denounces me. You see, my friend reality is basically founded and realized by extremes. For extremes are the basic bare, uncompromising nature of the more centrist position of the same ideology. Through extremes, stripped of its irrelevant obstacles and loyalties does the system work to its most mechanical and efficiency of itself. Within this state does it become the clearest if this forced-upon system obeys and coincides with the rules of human nature. Human nature shows itself the clearest in the most rigorous of circumstances. Fortunately for us, most all of these different systems have already been enacted giving us the divine ability to understand Humanity and its relation with order. The way I look at government... 'proper government' is that Government is the understanding of humanity. Only through the understanding of true human nature can one possibly understand the human invention of government and its flawed but excellent purpose destined. Anyhow, one component of the wonderful contrivement of religion is its ability to free man from the human machine of government as well as supplying a system for the government of the governing. The fear of God.

Am I the only person who felt that this paragraph was semantically null? Except for the last sentence that is. You're selling fear, J, but I'm not buying. I don't need to fear a retributive, vaporous hominid in the sky in order to strive to make the world a better place.

 

[9sublime]

Your job Justinian, is not anything with politics. You think you are a defender of decency and Christian values spreading the word. In fact, you are not, you are just like the rest of us, sitting behind a desk on an internet forum.

You however, are bigging yourself up and frankly making an arse of yourself. Do us all a favour, start discussing issues, not what you are doing here/how great you are.

 

[DrWho]

I don't stand on a street corner preaching like a religious person, atheists never do... noticed that?

I couldn't figure out how to paste a picture in here so here is a link. In the event that the link doesn't work it is a photo of an atheist standing on a street corner with a sign that says "No God". There were tons of photos available using a simple google search.


http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/No_God_1.jpg
http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/No_God_1.jpg

 

[9sublime]

Oh ok, I've never seen one thats all, and I bet the ratio is huge.

 

[DrWho]

"Once we can look at religion objectively and impartially, it becomes entirely obvious that religion has all the characteristics of a form of insanity." -Emmet F. Fields

An atheist believes that there is no God despite the fact that the non-existence of God is logically impossible to demonstrate, all the while claiming that he is a rational being.

The religionists claims to believe in a God for which evidence exists to demonstrate the possibility full well knowing that his belief is based on faith in addition to rational thought.

 

[vyo476]

The person who started this thread didn't believe that Christianiy was evil, they were just using someone else logic on Islam being evil and applying it to Christianity.

As the threads around here tend to do, this one has grown into an animal of its own. Thanks for the recognition, though.

 

[Coyote]

An atheist believes that there is no God despite the fact that the non-existence of God is logically impossible to demonstrate, all the while claiming that he is a rational being.

The religionists claims to believe in a God for which evidence exists to demonstrate the possibility full well knowing that his belief is based on faith in addition to rational thought.

Actually - the onus of proof is not on the athiest, it's on the one that asserts the positive, that there is a god.

This was posted before by....Fonz? I think? But it bears reiterating.

Here is a famous passage from Bertrand Russell's Is There a God?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[DrWho]

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I am not suggesting that doubters are psychotic at all. A form of Agnosticism is the only completely rational course of action.

The person who doubts the tea pot is completely rational but the person who states unequivocably that it does not exists is walking on logistical thin ice.

The skeptic is under no burden to prove their skepticism until they make a statement that is as much a matter of faith as the statement of the religionists. They still don't have to prove their position but they open themselves up to the same criticism as the religionists. But they are in a weaker position than the religionists as the one freely admits his beliefs are a matter of faith and the other claims to be empirical.

 

[numinus]

Actually - the onus of proof is not on the athiest, it's on the one that asserts the positive, that there is a god.

This was posted before by....Fonz? I think? But it bears reiterating.

Here is a famous passage from Bertrand Russell's Is There a God?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Its called negative logic or negation.

The point is to demonstrate the logical impossibility of something by assuming the opposite of a supposition.

It is used to demonstrate 'existence' only, not the nature of the thing.

Granted that negative logic is a rather weak form of truth, it is valid, nonetheless.

 

[vyo476]

Actually - the onus of proof is not on the athiest, it's on the one that asserts the positive, that there is a god.

What if I was to assert that there could possibly be a God? This, too, goes against atheism, which is the stated belief that there is no God. I'm saying maybe, because really there's no way to know - the statement more or less proves itself. Atheism has no such proof - and is in fact unprovable. If tomorrow science discovered the existence of God, that'd be it - discussion over, here's God, hooray and pass the salsa. However, science will never be able to prove that there is no such thing as God - there will always be more places and more ways to look.

You can say that the "onus of proof" lies on the believer, and yeah, you'd be right. But atheists believe something that is just as unproven. You want to be fair about it you'd have to call yourself an agnostic.

 

[Justinian]

Am I the only person who felt that this paragraph was semantically null? Except for the last sentence that is. You're selling fear, J, but I'm not buying. I don't need to fear a retributive, vaporous hominid in the sky in order to strive to make the world a better place.

Define a better place.

Freedom and belief/understanding are inseperable. Liberty works when instead of one ruler you have a collection of rulers and not a collection of infighters. When a public loses its moral core, it not only will relinquish much of its freedom but will embrace the abdication of its freedoms and the expanding of its intrusive government. Along with this comes the prominence of new theologies to replace religion and reinvent society which were all developed, designed and understood by a small group of people in the first place. They will almost universally profess the expansion of government and compromising of 'out-of-date freedoms and institutions' leading the control of the many by a massive, powerful, faceless, atheist machine of men. Without social protection and spiritualism, it's spearheaded by greed, materialism, and perpetuated with engineered public disunity by the planned-positioning of indoctrination in moral relativism and liquidation of history and historic ideals. Ever wonder why your teachers told you things that went against your very parents? ^ The ones that the school did not differ with their parents come from one of the families who invited it to begin with or were sheepishly overtaken by the dogmatic machinery of the system.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Define a better place.

Freedom and belief/understanding are inseperable. Liberty works when instead of one ruler you have a collection of rulers and not a collection of infighters. When a public loses its moral core, it not only will relinquish much of its freedom but will embrace the abdication of its freedoms and the expanding of its intrusive government. Along with this comes the prominence of new theologies to replace religion and reinvent society which were all developed, designed and understood by a small group of people in the first place. They will almost universally profess the expansion of government and compromising of 'out-of-date freedoms and institutions' leading the control of the many by a massive, powerful, faceless, atheist machine of men. Without social protection and spiritualism, it's spearheaded by greed, materialism, and perpetuated with engineered public disunity by the planned-positioning of indoctrination in moral relativism and liquidation of history and historic ideals. Ever wonder why your teachers told you things that went against your very parents? ^ The ones that the school did not differ with their parents come from one of the families who invited it to begin with or were sheepishly overtaken by the dogmatic machinery of the system.

Horse puckey. You've made a bunch of unsupported statements, many of which don't even make sense (see bolded). Make a cogent statement, support it with logic and evidence, and stop this pandering to fear.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

An atheist believes that there is no God despite the fact that the non-existence of God is logically impossible to demonstrate, all the while claiming that he is a rational being.

The religionists claims to believe in a God for which evidence exists to demonstrate the possibility full well knowing that his belief is based on faith in addition to rational thought.

It isn't the belief in the EXISTENCE of God that is the issue, it's the insane ego-trip that allows religious people to believe that they know what God wants AND that they have the right to reign abuse and violence on people who don't agree with them.

 

[DrWho]

It isn't the belief in the EXISTENCE of God that is the issue, it's the insane ego-trip that allows religious people to believe that they know what God wants AND that they have the right to reign abuse and violence on people who don't agree with them.

People of every stripe and group reign abuse and violence on people who don't agree with them. This is the nature of man. It is a goal of Christianity to reign in the natural tendency of man to abuse his fellow man.

The thread question was "is Christianity evil?" not "are Christians evil?" The answer to the first would be "no" Christianity is not evil, the answer to the second would be "yes" Christians are evil - as is everyone else.

But poll Christians and you will find that they admit to being less evil than they otherwise would be if they had never become Christians.