sex warehouse

With over 30,000 different denominations and sects to choose from, Christianity bears no orthodoxy, no consistency and no authority whatsoever. It has hundreds of 'official' denominations who disagree, sometime violently on all foundational tenets of the religion. Given the general level of ignorance people have about the religion they adopt and their propensity for moulding it to be what they want it to be, one could argue that each Christian has their own denomination. We can state confidently, with evidence and reason that Christianity hasn't a clue what it believes or why. Until the Christianity’s can actually internally agree and harmonise what they believe and state why, they all remain a laughably absurd and unsubstantiated proposition to those who do not believe. Your argument is not with atheists, it's with the other 29,999 sects who view your Christianity as a joke. Link.

I am an atheist. I believe that gods do not exist. I also believe the world would be a better place if all or most people didn't believe that gods exist, and in particular if children weren't taught to believe in something I consider to be a myth. And I would like to see a (peaceful) end to Christianity, and of all religious belief, within my lifetime. I have no illusions that is going to happen, of course, but I do believe that if we don't blow ourselves up in the next few hundred years or so that religion in general will become about as uncommon as, say, paganism is today. I believe that will happen because I believe that theism is false, and I believe that the power of truth is such that it will always emerge from the darkness, as I believe it always has – eventually. I believe that our increasing scientific knowledge will convince more and more people of that truth over time. For the same reason, I believe that this will be an improvement for mankind.

But regardless of how I want the world to be, I would oppose any attempt to bring about that change by force. My utopian dream is that people choose to give up religion. If any legislation were proposed to control peaceful and consensual religious practice in any way, I would be firmly against it. Every person has the right to believe what they believe and to act on those beliefs, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Everyone has the right to teach their children what they believe to be true; my personal disagreement with it is irrelevant.

And I would certainly be against "eliminating" anyone because of their beliefs. I would be shocked if I thought that Loftus, Avalos, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or any other vocal atheist would call for such tactics. But if they did, they would be no less wrong for advocating force against someone for peacefully believing in a god than those who in the past advocated and supported the torture and murder of people who failed to believe in one.

If those seem like fighting words to you, read them again. If they still seem like fighting words, turn them around, as if I were a Christian hoping that the whole world would embrace Christianity because I believed that to be true.

You as a believer have no less – and no more – right to live your life as you see fit than I do as a non-believer. If you don't accept that, then it's you who is starting the fight.

I think the OTF is seen to fail in the mind of those who are afraid of the implications.

For those interested in the truth, it’s a good test. Believers clearly set a low bar for evidence when it comes to their own supernatural beliefs, but they raise the bar when it comes to other supernatural beliefs and no evidence is sufficient when it comes to any claim which negates their beliefs. The OTF reveals this bias.

The believer wants to think that the atheists rejects their beliefs for bad reasons, when in fact, atheists reject the believers beliefs for the same reasons believers reject other religions and superstitious claims. Obviously, people believe in the magical things they do because of indoctrination, confusing correlation with causation, and confirmation bias. Christians can see this readily when they consider Greek Myths or reincarnationists– but their indoctrination blinds them in regards to their own, equally unsupportable supernatural beliefs. If they are indoctrinated well enough, they become too afraid of thinking outside the faith– afraid that they’ll suffer forever if they do so.

Every cult member can tell you why they are sure their religion is the really true truth– but none can tell you what evidence would get them to believe a competing claim– that’s because no evidence would or could suffice. They are brainwashed. Christians can see it with the Muslims and the Scientologists, but their indoctrination makes sure they deny it in themselves. The OTF illustrates this, however– which is why we see so much kicking and screaming around it.

The OTF is just a tool to help a believer counteract the biases of his indoctrination, so that instead of endlessly trying to prop us his belief, he’s got a brain more willing to consider whether his supernatural beliefs are any more likely to be true than the supernatural beliefs he rejects (such as reincarnation). As far as the empirical evidence is concerned, the answer is “no”.

I understand why this would bother someone more interested in keeping the faith rather than understanding what is real. Magician, James Randi points out that the easiest people to fool are those who are certain they cannot be fooled. I know I can be fooled. And I don’t feel like fooling myself any more. I think those against the OTF are those with a strong interest in continuing to fool themselves.

Link.

I agree with the evangelicals about almost nothing, but I do agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with humanity - but not for the reason they think. They see it in terms of "sin" (which, as you know, originally meant "missing the mark" but which they've redefined to mean "rebellion"). As I've said many times, I'm convinced it's neurological, and the slowly growing body of evidence is beginning to bear this out. They're programmed for authoritarianism; there is a biological imperative causing them to see reality in terms of rigidly-defined hierarchical structures, and they've been told for generations by the authority figures in which they're completely invested that they're in a state of rebellion against a supreme authority, and that they deserve the most extreme consequences. I've also recently become convinced that it's coupled with what used to be called "psychopathology", but is now called "antisocial personality disorder". Lack of empathy, willingness or eagerness to see others suffer - the indicators are there; it just doesn't get recognized as such because, as you also know, in this society religion gets a free pass.

You can change the cultural factors - the educational system, their early childhood environments (well, you can try) - but you won't change who they are. The vast majority are like your acquaintance - and, even if they can change to some limited extent, what is the motivation for them to do so? What do we offer them? All we have is an impersonal, uncaring universe. Their belief system promises them eternal keggers and Nascar rallies, while they get to watch everyone they despise (which turns out to be just about everyone) being tormented forever. You know there's no way to wean them from this....When you interact with them, don't get your hopes up. It'll be easier for you in the long run, and you won't be so devastated when they disappoint you, which they almost invariably will. Link

John, your former friend Bill has his been convinced that he has in his possession a book of truths backed and endorsed by the creator god of the universe, to Bill, it's contents cannot be defeated, if you counter his truths, this proves to him that he is right and you are wrong, it has a built-in reverse psychology protection, if you disagree with his beliefs and his book of truths, then you're an adversary to his truths, therefore to him, you are an evil person and of a reprobate mind looking out only to destroy his faith and deceiving him to join you and Satan in the lake of fire at the judgment seat of Christ. Therefore to Bill, you're only out to deceive him and destroy his truth that he has been especially elected to receive through gods calling via the holy spirit. Link.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

I think about my believing years, and it would have done me some good to hear people like Harris--or any smart person treating religious beliefs like the crazy delusions they are. When you treat these things with respect, then trusting people assume that there's something worthy of respect there-- that faith is something to be respected. I bet I would have found former preachers and priests turned atheists fascinating-- and there's growing numbers of them.

I'm glad we don't have to tiptoe around peoples' magical beliefs any more. I think there is a lot to be said for declaring the emperor naked. Of course believers will rush and swear that the emperor is wearing magical robes and that they saw them and that the silly person calling the emperor naked doesn't know anything deep about magical fabrics-- but the seeds of doubt will be planted in young minds and they will have a choice that many of us didn't have until later in life.

I do think that religion will mostly be associated with the less educated classes and the poorer in the future. One day people will wonder how it is that people could have ever really believed such crazy things.

I cannot see any force in an argument to the existence of God from the existence of morality. The Existence of God (p. 215).

Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books “pseudepigrapha.” Link. This is based on his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

I suggest that, if the probability of the existence of God on someone’s evidence is not too low after adequate investigation, it would indeed be a best act to worship and repent before God. After all, if you receive a very expensive and much-desired present and it is unclear who has sent it, it would be bad not to write a very grateful letter to the person most likely to have sent it (even if it is not very likely that that person has sent it). You might express your gratitude in a conditional way (‘I’m assuming that you sent this’), but not to express any gratitude at all would be a bad thing. And if you have damaged the present, it would be bad not to apologize. A fortiori, if—although it is unclear who (if anyone) gave you life but the most likely candidate is a God—it would be very bad indeed not to express a very great amount of gratitude, and very considerable repentance.

--From the 2nd edition of Faith and Reason, page 223.

It was one of my children that pushed me toward atheism. He did something that I didn't approve. In the bible, we learn that if one of god's children disappoints him and refuses to beg for forgiveness, he sends them to an eternity of torture. Until that incident with my son, I didn't understand how insane the concept of hell was. Never would I want my son to suffer. He could spit on me or hate me and I would still seek his good. There is nothing that he could do that would make me want him to be tortured forever-or even a minute. Once I began to question god about hell, I began to question him about everything. I didn't want to ask questions. I wanted to believe. But once the ball started rolling, I couldn't stop it. Link

When people quote the bible at me, they may as well be telling me they're crazy. It probably has the same effect as people quoting the Quo'ran, Book of Mormon, or Dianetics at me-- or even the Big Book of Greek Myths-- or casting a spell upon me. I think it's crazy that people believe in magic books in the 21st century. -- articulett

In my world miracles like virgin births and resurrections do not happen. What world do you live in? If they do not happen now then they did not happen in the ancient past either. And that's how historians must view the evidence. Yesterday's evidence has lost all of its power to convince. We do not believe in miracle claims in today's world and we live in this world. So how much more so is it the case that we cannot believe they took place in the ancient past! We can interview people in today's world and we still don't believe they happened. How much more so is this the case in the ancient past where we cannot interview the people involved! The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament. How much more so then is it the case in our world that we cannot believe when miracles are supposed to establish that Yahweh did a particular miracle in the past! Again, if they do not happen in our day then they did not happen in the past either. What world are YOU living in? --John W. Loftus

On the one hand, believers who object to the OTF look like a person who argues in a court room that he does not want a fair impartial judgment, but rather a biased one from a biased judge who operates on double standards.

On the other hand, believers who accept the rationale for the OTF have a great amount of difficulty in arguing that the raw uninterpreted historical data without any culturally adopted Bayesian "priors" leads the historian to the conclusion that Jesus bodily arose from the dead.

Does all this disprove God? Of course not. Science speaks only to the improbable, not the impossible. If philosophy rules the day, God can never be ruled out entirely, because one could argue that human cognitive evolution was directly and intentionally inspired by God, so we alone, of all species, can perceive Him (and reality in general) using our naturally evolved theory of mind. But if scientific parsimony prevails, and I think it should, such philosophical positioning becomes embarrassingly like grasping at straws. (The Belief Instinct, p. 195-6).