Christianity

[Trevor Salyzyn]

In Europe and America, it is fashionable for intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals to attack Christianity. (From my time at university, I noticed that it was often Fine Arts and Arts students -- not Science students -- who were the most adamant despisers of religion.) Are these attacks fair? Do they do justice to the purpose of religion?

I find that many educated Christians shake their heads at the ignorance of knee-jerk atheists. It's as though the anti-religious folk are genuinely refusing to consider valid something that is obvious. Is the "patronizing" attitude of educated Christians toward educated non-Christians justified?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Trevor,

I noticed that it was often Fine Arts and Arts students.

Art students tend to be liberal hedonists, who usually embrace postmodern thought because it’s a bit more relative. Many have an intuitive hatred towards much of Christian thought because some of its implications is that there is absolute truth in the world, and it is worth dedicating and disciplining ones life around.

The very word sinner implies that one has given in to unconscious feminine impulses, and the very act of confession implies that the sinner acknowledges the inferiority of his actions. Not a bad tradition for a society to adopt really.

Most art students loathe the thought that sinning is a negative thing because much of their creativity is dependent on self-destructive behavior.

Although, Christianity just got a little carried away with Jesus as savior, and god as an abstraction that one should worship. And these two fallacies are the two common criticisms of art students and atheists alike because it’s such an easy attack. Attacking belief systems has become commonplace.

not Science students.

I think that is because many scientists use certain Christian ideas in their own daily lives, like having discipline, which allows them to be very productive with their work. Many are not all that hedonistic because they sense the danger, so many scientists sense some of the good within Christianity.

Now that I think about it, if the Christian bible with all its allegories, morals and philosophy was rewritten, and overhauled by removing a lot of the crap, and doing a superimposed analysis through the filter of masculine/feminine psychology, it could be a much more effective spiritual text…

Maybe I’ll do that someday if I ever have the passion… ; )

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Christians as well as non-Christians are equally exposed to and influenced by the forces of nihilism, decadence and its resulting femininity. Therefore their criticism and judgment of each other seems more like a diversion or self-justification than anything else.

Christianity as social-political-ethical commentary is not necessarily worse than anything that was birthed out of it later on, like the whole of modernity. One might argue that Christianity and the Islam are at least less corrupted by nihilism than its offspring, but only slightly so. Especially the Islam I find resistant in that regard, although not becoming attractive because of that. To some though it does for this very reason: supplying identity in a firmer context where the rest of the society seems becoming more flowy and degenerating. Same goes for the lures of extreme nationalism, fascism, Nazism, Zionism and neoconservatism. Or any blend. Modernity is all about blending.

[1ntel]

In Europe and America, it is fashionable for intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals to attack Christianity.

Why?

(From my time at university, I noticed that it was often Fine Arts and Arts students -- not Science students -- who were the most adamant despisers of religion.)

Why do you think that is?

Are these attacks fair?

No. An extreme example would be: suicide bombers. Though, the reasons differ from one individual to the next.

Do they do justice to the purpose of religion?

That's a very tricky question. Yes and no would be my response, though I'm sure this is a fallacy.

I find that many educated Christians shake their heads at the ignorance of knee-jerk atheists. It's as though the anti-religious folk are genuinely refusing to consider valid something that is obvious. Is the "patronizing" attitude of educated Christians toward educated non-Christians justified?

They're both refusing to consider the other persons beliefs, because they each feel with "equal" conviction they they are right and the other is wrong. Hence, they argue.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

Are these attacks fair?

Anything is fair game. Why would you ask this question which is surely meaningless to a thinker?


Are you preparing your own defenses as parallels are being drawn between your philosophy and Christianity? :)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

1ntel, it's good to see you have moved to the forum-at-large.

me: In Europe and America, it is fashionable for intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals to attack Christianity.
you: Why?

Perhaps they feel threatened.

me: (From my time at university, I noticed that it was often Fine Arts and Arts students -- not Science students -- who were the most adamant despisers of religion.)
you: Why do you think that is?

I would suggest that it is because religion does not encroach upon the domain of science. As Ryan suggested, it only interferes with the lifestyles of artists.

me: Do they do justice to the purpose of religion?
you: That's a very tricky question. Yes and no would be my response, though I'm sure this is a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. It's a contradiction. You will need to explain in which cases it is "yes", and in which cases it is "no".

They're both refusing to consider the other persons beliefs, because they each feel with "equal" conviction they they are right and the other is wrong. Hence, they argue.

So truth takes a back seat in such debates?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, I knew it was only a matter of time before you felt the irresistable urge to insert one of your slimy, unjustified opinions into this thread. Your post is not civil enough to merit a reply: everything down to the smiley-face at the end is meant to cause trouble, not discussion. That's all I have to say to you.

[Carl G]

Neil Melnyk,

I know you recently changed your board name. What was it before? Just curious. For continuity's sake.

[Imadrongo]

WhorlyWhelk

[Bilby]

I loath Christianity because of everything it stands for. I’ve yet to hear one logical or ethical argument in its favour. The whole belief is not only irrational; it’s wicked in the extreme. The core concepts are a case study of masculinity at its worse. Christians seek in god a level of comfort they never got from their own dysfunctional and probably overly-authoritative dad. Once you get over the ludicrous view that unbelievers deserve eternal damnation, comes the niggling practical problems that would ensue. Which part of a person’s soul, exactly, is bound in hell and who (and why) is the jailor? Does this world suggest that its creator is benevolent, supreme, even moral – let alone sane?

Remember that heaven will be populated by Christians. And you can imagine the level of philosophising you will get there. It will not be a lot of fun.

Atheism doesn’t offer any rewards but you are an adult and don’t need any.

[1ntel]

Trevor,

1ntel, it's good to see you have moved to the forum-at-large.

Heh, it's about time I showed some balls!

In Europe and America, it is fashionable for intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals to attack Christianity.

Me: Why?

Perhaps they feel threatened.

Then I guess they're belief system is a little if not more unstable. It's unfortunate when one notices one's own belief systems crumbling another the scrutiny of another's. Sometimes is a little too much reality for comfort.

(From my time at university, I noticed that it was often Fine Arts and Arts students -- not Science students -- who were the most adamant despisers of religion.)

Me: Why do you think that is?

I would suggest that it is because religion does not encroach upon the domain of science. As Ryan suggested, it only interferes with the lifestyles of artists.

I agree with the first part - one can believe in both religion and science. Religion "explaining" the unknowns of science and vice versa. In a way they fit together.

Do they do justice to the purpose of religion?

Me: That's a very tricky question. Yes and no would be my response, though I'm sure this is a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. It's a contradiction. You will need to explain in which cases it is "yes", and in which cases it is "no".

[Fallacy and contradiction (murky water for me between these two, because in a contradiction one must be false, but which one may be unknown (I guess). However, a fallacy is what it is, false. Do I have the right Idea...?]

Attacks on religion re-enforce it's teaching by acting as examples and reminding its followers that there is evil and this evil wants to destroy their belief systems. Hence, resulting in a tighter grip on The Holy Book. On the other hand, attacks on religion may weaken that bond, by confusing a pseudo-disciple into questioning his religion with scientific questions that religion does not answer. I think this is called a dual explanation, am I right?

Me: They're both refusing to consider the other persons beliefs, because they each feel with "equal" conviction they they are right and the other is wrong. Hence, they argue.

So truth takes a back seat in such debates?

Well, each believe they are in possession of truth. Whether one is right and the other isn't doesn't really matter, because they're each ignoring unknown territory, or refusing to consider.

What is the truth in these circumstances, is beyond me. Anyways, I'm a born Catholic turned atheist, so I guess I have respect for both sides. (Why? ...)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Bilby, I have serious doubts that educated Christians believe the same thing that rednecks do -- just as educated people are more versed in anything than rednecks of any stripe. I would hazard that if you were to present your view of Christianity to, say, a theologian, he would find you insufferably ignorant.

The total hatred you have toward the religion does not seem rational, especially when you make the rather peculiar claim that all Christians have overbearing fathers.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

1ntel,

[Fallacy and contradiction (murky water for me between these two, because in a contradiction one must be false, but which one may be unknown (I guess). However, a fallacy is what it is, false. Do I have the right Idea...?]

Contradictions state two things that cannot both be true simultaneously. A fallacy is a claim that appears to add something to a debate, but when analyzed carefully shows that it is irrelevant and proves nothing (for instance, the number of people who believe an argument is used as evidence that it's true, or the age of a belief is used as the test of its validity).

What is the truth in these circumstances, is beyond me. Anyways, I'm a born Catholic turned atheist, so I guess I have respect for both sides. (Why? ...)

Ever since I picked up Saint Augustine, my view of Catholicism has been confirmed: the religion is layered. A priest is highly unlikely to have the same beliefs as the lay Catholic.

Since uneducated laymen are by and large going to be superstitious and unethical, they appear to be fed ethical superstitions. All people who will never have the time or patience for genuine philosophy are thus given an opportunity to lead relatively full lives. Being an atheist does not, therefore, prevent someone from being a high-ranking member of the Catholic clergy.

The Christian religion is not even opposed to atheism. And, it is about as opposed to truth as a Disney cartoon. Leveling hatred against it seems about as useful and intelligent as hating pop-culture cartoons.

[1ntel]

Contradictions state two things that cannot both be true simultaneously. A fallacy is a claim that appears to add something to a debate, but when analyzed carefully shows that it is irrelevant and proves nothing (for instance, the number of people who believe an argument is used as evidence that it's true, or the age of a belief is used as the test of its validity).

Got it.

A priest is highly unlikely to have the same beliefs as the lay Catholic.

...Or just as a child may take the stories literally, whereas an adult Catholic may not. Ex. I used to believe that the Universe was created in 5days and humans on the 6th!

The Christian religion is not even opposed to atheism. And, it is about as opposed to truth as a Disney cartoon. Leveling hatred against it seems about as useful and intelligent as hating pop-culture cartoons.

I agree, except I would like to think that a belief system based on a God would be opposed to a belief system of the opposite view.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bilby , it could be interesting to examine your arguments more closely.

I loath Christianity because of everything it stands for. I’ve yet to hear one logical or ethical argument in its favour. The whole belief is not only irrational; it’s wicked in the extreme.

Just to give one: many Christian thinkers have logically concluded the existence of an absolute reality which they then call 'God'. In how far this image becomes anthropomorphized really depends on the subculture within Christianity. In the Islam for example it's kept abstract to the extreme.

Christians seek in god a level of comfort they never got from their own dysfunctional and probably overly-authoritative dad.

That's modernity for you. Nothing really special about Christianity which just got caught up in it like everybody else.

Which part of a person’s soul, exactly, is bound in hell and who (and why) is the jailor?

It's not that different from the concept of rebirth or the animal realms in Buddhism really. In the Bible only God rules heaven and hell, gives all the divine blessings and the curses ('there is no other god'). The Devil was needed to create once the Christian religion became phrased in a more Zoroastrian type of way: a struggle between good and evil forces. In a way you can witness here the birth of a religion within a religion, which explains the real problem with Christianity: it's Legion to start with, a 'bible code' to itself and its believers.

Does this world suggest that its creator is benevolent, supreme, even moral – let alone sane?

That's a question even a freshly converted Christian laughs about because of it's illogical and assumption ridden context. Better think that one over a bit more thorough.

Atheism doesn’t offer any rewards but you are an adult and don’t need any.

Atheism doesn't offer anything and certainly no way to adulthood. The average atheist just coasts along on the ethical slipstream of two thousand year Christianity, thinking that he has really departed with something. To leave the Christian shadows is a bit more tricky I'm afraid.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

1ntel,

I agree, except I would like to think that a belief system based on a God would be opposed to a belief system of the opposite view.

I'm not certain that the Christian belief system is based on a God. Rather, it is based on the words and writings of a few philosophic individuals, many of whom were reacting to the superstitions at the time, and who were trying to invent a saner religion based on centuries of philosophic advancement.

As I mentioned Saint Augustine: if you were a lazy reader, you might even believe that he thought the Greco-Roman gods existed. He constantly says things to the effect of "...and these demons approve of people doing this!"

But, he also makes reference to many philosophers that he is in accord with, and some of these are undeniably atheist (Diogenes, for instance). Augustine was a master of rhetor, and as such, he had an option available to him that most philosophers do not: he could speak the language of the superstitious multitudes. He could be widely understood by non-philosophers.

I chose to read him because of his reputation as a Church Father; still, I would be hard-pressed to consider him theist without some carefully measured provisos.

[brad walker]

Now that I think about it, if the Christian bible with all its allegories, morals and philosophy was rewritten, and overhauled by removing a lot of the crap, and doing a superimposed analysis through the filter of masculine/feminine psychology, it could be a much more effective spiritual text…

Maybe I’ll do that someday if I ever have the passion… ; )

heard of the jefferson bible?

[DHodges]

Bilby, I have serious doubts that educated Christians believe the same thing that rednecks do -- just as educated people are more versed in anything than rednecks of any stripe. I would hazard that if you were to present your view of Christianity to, say, a theologian, he would find you insufferably ignorant.

The total hatred you have toward the religion does not seem rational, especially when you make the rather peculiar claim that all Christians have overbearing fathers.

The Christianity that is widespread in the U.S. is not particularly educated. It's got a lot of faith healers and charlatans like Benny Hinn. That's the level of religion that has political influence in the U.S. It is no less dangerous than Islam.

No doubt there are some "educated" Christians, but definitely the minority. In the U.S., I don't see how an intelligent, educated person could call themselves "Christian" without some embarrassment.

[Bilby]

Diebert, you said that Christian thinkers logically conclude the existence of god, but you didn’t offer an example of that logic. An atheist says god doesn’t explain anything. Philosophically, you can have the same universe with or without a god, because both assume an underlying complexity. Morally, it’s hard to imagine the universe being much different to what it is now with or without a god, and that’s basically the position of an atheist. What does god provide to the equation that you wouldn’t already have? Certain people have a psychological need for religion. It offers them something life can’t provide, so it’s a source of comfort for a lot of people world-wide. I don’t have a problem with people having a private need for spirituality in times of need but this isn’t how most people would associate religion. At the very least, it’s indolent thinking on a very large scale.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dave,

The Christianity that is widespread in the U.S. is not particularly educated. It's got a lot of faith healers and charlatans like Benny Hinn. That's the level of religion that has political influence in the U.S. It is no less dangerous than Islam.

Considering the history of Christianity in the West (for instance, when a king converted, the entire populace instantly converted as well), I would be hard-pressed to consider such Christianity any different than the commonest superstitions (7 years of bad luck for breaking a mirror, and so on). In contrast, the Christianity of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegaard, John Stuart Mill, and the Founding Fathers of America, seems a class removed from this.

If the argument against Christianity is that the common man does not know what he believes, that is not an argument at all.

No doubt there are some "educated" Christians, but definitely the minority. In the U.S., I don't see how an intelligent, educated person could call themselves "Christian" without some embarrassment.

That sounds like a fashion trend among otherwise intelligent, educated people. Fall colours are in, and Christianity is out!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Bilby,

At the very least, it’s indolent thinking on a very large scale.

Are you certain that the indolence has anything to do with the religion? I would sooner use indolence as an argument that many people who claim to be Christians are too lazy to be Christians.

There are more Christians among the atheists than among the Bible-thumpers.

An atheist says god doesn’t explain anything. Philosophically, you can have the same universe with or without a god, because both assume an underlying complexity. Morally, it’s hard to imagine the universe being much different to what it is now with or without a god, and that’s basically the position of an atheist. What does god provide to the equation that you wouldn’t already have?

If you stick to the pantheist definition of God (ie. God is Everything: the definition that the Founding Fathers used), this argument has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever. Denying the existence of God is identical to denying the existence of existence. It doesn't make sense.

[1ntel]

I'm not certain that the Christian belief system is based on a God.

It most certainly is.

Rather, it is based on the words and writings of a few philosophic individuals, many of whom were reacting to the superstitions at the time, and who were trying to invent a saner religion based on centuries of philosophic advancement.

...Or a few wise men chatting with God over a nice cup of coco...On a cold, dark, and stormy night. -Got myself the beginnings on a book!

As I mentioned Saint Augustine: if you were a lazy reader, you might even believe that he thought the Greco-Roman gods existed. He constantly says things to the effect of "...and these demons approve of people doing this!"

No wonder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Augu ... nd_thinker

he could speak the language of the superstitious multitudes. He could be widely understood by non-philosophers.

Deception.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

1ntel:

me: I'm not certain that the Christian belief system is based on a God.

you: It most certainly is.

My argument is that the Christian conception of God is only similar in name to the Greco-Roman conception of gods. Monotheism is so far removed from polytheism that there is no identity between the two.

Pantheism, the fullest expression of belief in a single Deity, and which is fully compatible with Christianity, is true by definition. The only argument an atheist has ever levelled against pantheism is that "sometimes people anthropomorphize the word God". This is not an argument against pantheism, though: it is an argument against monotheists who are not pantheists.

Deception.

His motive appears to have been to prevent the slaughter of Christians by the highly superstitious Romans. If anyone is presently deceived by Saint Augustine, it is only because he is a poor reader. Like the average Nietzsche reader, he is reading an author that is too difficult for him.

[Kitoak]

Well first it seems that you are arguing over christianity, when none of you are christians, and making gobal assuptions about multiple religions and basing conclusions on half truths. Christianity, is several religions with only one common premsis, and that is "Jesus is the son of God". If you don't believe in either, how can you have an intelligent conversation about those people? Certainly, you can make more assuptions based on your own view point and what you have witness, but those are not based on the doctrines of any of those religions but the actions of falliable humans you have met, and couldn't you say that you met equally evil people that have no religion?

So if you remove the bias of the conversation, and only look at the questions, you actually might find different answers.

1. I've seen the best bible bangers around, these people scare me because I'm not sure they would ever run into real life. devote christians, seem to isolate themselves and never deal with the pure art and science students which dislike them. Same goes that if a pure art or science student ran into a devote christian, they would run the other way, because the devote christian would only say bable to them like, "Jesus loves you and forgives you, repent and rejoyce in life!" Those that I hear do, nothing is resolved, no one wins, no one loses, its a loss of energy.
2. I've met some very intelligent people who were christians, other reglions, and those that dont' believe in God at all! I've also me ignorant people on all those sides too. So I've come to the conclusion that relgion, and intelligents are not attributes that are always related.
3. Europe, would depend on what part, and if thats from a European view point or and American view point. As far as americans go, they are sometimes the laughing stock of a lot of jokes of other countries, not just about religion but about everything. Some times Americans are picked on and dont' even know it in some countries. So each situation would have to be reviewed on a case by case bases and not put in one lump sum to draw a conclusion.
4. Are these attacks fair? that's like asking is all capitol punishment fair? its all in your own point of view.

So what conculsions if any can be drawn from these? very few, as each individual is different and has different reactions, granted many are simplar because of family teachings, growth development, and paradiagns accepted by the environments which we thrive in. But I find that there are many on both sides, and in several religions and cultures, it is an individual that can decide how they will react to those around them.

One thing I didnt' under stand is strange use of gender selected thought, and don't deem it worth any comment.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Kit: I don't need to be a Christian to make an argument about Christianity. As well, the definition of Christianity is by no means clear (I have seen Christians argue that Jesus is not the son of God, so your definition is not true), and unfounded attacks against the religion are common -- particularly among otherwise intelligent people. These are facts you are ignoring.

Debating whether or not these attacks are fair and justified is a perfectly valid train of thought. Relating it to arguments about capital punishment only makes this claim more relevant: there is a significant moral issue at stake that affects the lives of many people. The worth of Christianity, like the worth of capital punishment, should be discussed -- dismissing it as "all your own point of view" is laziness. It is not insight. Moral discussions are always about points of view, but that is not sufficient reason to avoid discussions of morality.