"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

[Peh]

vivster said:

Peh said:

So, not believing in magical ponies has what kind of infinite importance?

Mind you that there are atheistic religions like Buddhism.

So you don't agree it's of infinite importance to know that magical ponies don't exist? Considering the vast majority of humans on this planet believe in magical ponies and are trying to inflict their magical pony morality and magical pony policies on us I think it's pretty important for everyone to know that there aren't any magical ponies. We waste so many resources on magical ponies that it really is the most important thing on earth to convince people that there aren't magical ponies.

Well, you made a point there. But people spend resources regardless of them being true or not. It's what they think they are. But let us assume uber magical sky pony is real and all what he did in the past is real as well. I would still not be a fan of his. Hm.. so at one point it is important to know in order to adjust your life to it. 

 

Jumpin said:

Peh said:

I suppose they mean by proving christianity false as in the New Testament and everything what comes with it is build on a lie.

 

But the world by today shows us that facts, evidence and proofs can all be labeled as fake news in front of their eyes. Those People don't listen to reason. Hence the flat earth movement. 

The issue is, that most of the ridiculous believes are being hold by stupid people. And you can't argue with stupid.

More or less a person could say present evidence that the Gospel story didn't happen, that they are a complete fiction but it wouldn't disprove Christianity. 

So, you could have a Christian who believes "God is a man in the sky. He will grant wishes that you pray to him. If you are good, you become an angel and go to heaven, which exists in the sky. If you are naughty or a non-believer, he will send you to a fiery hell, which is beneath the Earth's crust." - This is kind of Christianity for dummies (not in the sense that these are the basics of it, but in the sense that this is the form that dummies believe in; like the Simpsons characters). This is also more of a recent interpretation, this is not the description that any writers before the last couple hundred years describe Christianity; it's mostly a comedic interpretation. In Roman times, the idea of a man in the sky is something Christians found ridiculous as well, which is why they made fun of Pagans for it. There is medieval art and such of Jesus looking up, but that is mostly metaphorical because 

Reading actual Christian theologians and scholarly works, the above description is not really what they believe in. You have St. Augustine over 1500 years ago writing about how God the Father exists outside of time and space, while the holy spirit permeates all things. Even the Big Bang theory was essentially conceptualized as a scientific presentation of the creation with all the sacredness, metaphor, and spirituality taken out of the equation. Relativity and the dilation of spacetime is consistent with the trinitarian view that God the Father somehow exists beyond the universe, but "his" unchanging nature exists before, during, and after time - a massless object moving at the speed of light can hit the other side of the universe instantly (relative to its own point of reference) while the rest of the universe moves forward over a period of trillions of years.

If people want to be Christian, they will figure out a way to make the religion consistent with what we know is true today... and there will always be the dummies who reject a progress of knowledge and will still believe in the man in the sky anyway. But, I don't think there's a such thing as disproving Christianity. It's too huge of a thing. As long as it is appealing, there will be Christians. It is less appealing now because of globalization and people find church boring and a waste of time; those people drop off - but there are those that actually like it, and more Christians join simply due to this cultural appeal.

 

Some things in Christianity, very core systems, can't really be disproven. They are ideological concepts.

1. It is hypocrisy to judge people - this was the main message of Jesus, a group called the Pharisees were judging all sorts of people for breaking the Law (as in the biblical Law), and that they deserved punishment because they were doing something that would prevent them from getting into heaven. Jesus thought this was ridiculously stupid: they said "So you don't think these laws will get you into heaven" and he said "They will most certainly get you into heaven, I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that you're an asshole for judging people who don't follow the laws, and a hypocrite because you don't follow them either." The Pharisees were insulted at the suggestion, so Jesus said "Yeah dude, if you interpret adultery as even feeling lust for another that is not your wife, you are all sinners! So fuck you!" He didn't drop the F-bombs, but the intent was there. So Jesus essentially said, "All of those laws and commandments are really just aiming to get people to do two things - Love everyone and everything. And if you are beating and stoning people for not following the Laws, then you're a sinner yourself... and an asshole hypocrite."

2. Give to the needy - he said wealthy people are at a disadvantage because they have more to give up. Jesus effectively set up a commune for his followers. The irony is that a lot of the self-described staunch Christians are very anti-communism... despite the fact that Communism has been a common practice among Christian societies (monasteries, nuns, etc...) since the beginning of the faith. It just goes to show that Christianity means very different things to different people.

3. A person who rejects temptation has more freedom.

4. The metaphor for walking on water - it's not meant to be that "Whoah! It's a miracle! This guy can walk on water!" In the context, the story is about defying your pre-existing knowledge of the world and challenge yourself into exploring new knowledge without confines. It's the same as a psychedelic trip - one of the reasons why some people believe early Christians practiced psychedelic drug usage.

But anyway, I'm rambling, what I am trying to say is that these are all ideas and concepts. And the full body of work can really be applied to different understandings as to the origins of the Gospel. If Jesus didn't actually do any of this stuff, someone still wrote it, and that person had the stories in his/her head (yeah, it's possible that multiple books in the bible were written by women; particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament)

If someone would proof that the story in the gospel never happened, than I wouldn't consider them being called Christians but rather Jews. 

For the rest of your reply, I have to get more into that.

Jumpin said:

vivster said:

The scientific method doesn't have a bias. It's there to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not lend itself to absolute negative statements like "there is no god". It's only meant for absolute positive statements, like "there is no proof of god". And it isn't rigid either. If the scientific method ever finds definitive proof of a god then that will be another fact and everyone who believes in science will also believe in that god because he has been proven to exist. I mean why not believe in something that has been proven to exist?

And how is atheism an "in thing"? Basically everyone who has not been indoctrinated by parents to believe in some sort of god follows atheism because if there is no evidence of something, there is no point in wasting time believing it. Atheism isn't really a belief, it's the absence of a believe. It's the trust in the scientific method and critical thinking. Though "trust" is again a bad word because facts do not need trust to be true. If we can see something and we can measure something and we can verify it and reproduce it, it is real. Everything that wants to be real needs to follow those simple rules.

Atheists have not been indoctrinated to not believe in any gods, they have come to that conclusion themselves. An atheist household doesn't speak of god, because they are of no concern, much like magic ponies. Atheism isn't indoctrination like Religion, it's the absence of indoctrination. You have to teach a child what a god is. To teach a child to not believe in god you just don't mention god and it will come to that conclusion itself. If a god exists, it would be easy for people who have never heard of it to believe in it. But they don't unless they find solid proof, which does not exist yet.

And even if you don't agree, atheism has nothing to do with politics or society for that matter. It's nothing but a simple conclusion based on verifiable facts that does not affect anything. As for Atheists dangling their superiority constantly in front of religious people. We wouldn't have to constantly remind people of how stupid they are if they'd just stop trying to wear they stupidity as a badge of honor and stop interfering with people who don't believe in their magical ponies.

Atheism doesn't have policies or rules to oppose on people. Religion does. And it does so frequently.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

Atheism is a disbelief. Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. They don't say that god does not exist. Well.. probably some do. But by definition, they simply don't believe. 

Atheist = átheos = Without God. 

Rogerioandrade said:

Peh said:

How is that true for atheism? 

Because both are based on assumptions about  things whose existence will always be  unconclusive: spiritual beings.

Atheism is not about an assumption on a specific question. And atheist can believe in spiritual beings like angels, ghost and other stuff. They just don't believe in Deities.