What is the atheist's obsession with religion?

[aelf]

That's an especially good analogy, because we were told (jokingly) as children that the moon was made of cheese, but have since realised that those tales were false. By the same vein, many of the claims of those who told us about God have been proven false as well. So, it's not outrageous that we dismiss modified claims as well ("No, the inside is made of cheese!"). Obviously, proper evidence would totally change our minds.

Which claims central to Christianity have been proven false? (I'm not being biased or trying to defend religion, I just want to know what you think and I'm most familiar with Christianity.)

 

[Flying Pig]

None; except that the Bible is not the word of Gd because the Earth was not created in 6 days; so Genesis is wrong... that's pretty central - the word of God is flawed.

 

[aelf]

None; except that the Bible is not the word of Gd because the Earth was not created in 6 days; so Genesis is wrong... that's pretty central - the word of God is flawed.

Whose days are those?

 

[Flying Pig]

Fair point: but there's also the order, and a lot of the verses... any faliure in the Bibile means that it is not the word of God

 

[El_Machinae]

Which claims central to Christianity have been proven false? (I'm not being biased or trying to defend religion, I just want to know what you think and I'm most familiar with Christianity.)

Which claims of Christianity you were told as a kid have been proven false? Seriously, that's what I'm comparing it to. Pretending to whittle down the essential claims is (in my mind) burying the cheese in the Moon.

But, okay.
- the Creation Story (not essential)
- the consequences of Original Sin (proven false)
- the story of the Great Flood (not essential)
- and its tie to the promise to Abraham (proven false by association)
- King David (not proven false, but very unlikely)
- the prophecy of a messiah through him (unlikely through association)
- the details of Jesus's birth (rather essential)
- the details of Jesus's prophecies (rather essential)
- Paul's analogies of the spirit world by allusions to the material world (essential)
- John's Revelation (e.g.., 666. But it's so wacky, no one really cares)

This is not the meat of the analogy, though. The meat of the analogy is that we were told that Christianity is made up of cheese. And now apologists are trying to convince us that the cheese is on the inside. Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to buy it without some real evidence. Just like you won't believe that there's cheese on the inside of the Moon without some real evidence.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A 'proper' atheist only disbelieves in God for the same reason that Christians disbelieve that the moon is made of cheese; should evidence to the contrary arise; a 'proper' atheist should change their opinion - anything else is religion.

That's an especially good analogy, because we were told (jokingly) as children that the moon was made of cheese, but have since realised that those tales were false. By the same vein, many of the claims of those who told us about God have been proven false as well. So, it's not outrageous that we dismiss modified claims as well ("No, the inside is made of cheese!"). Obviously, proper evidence would totally change our minds.

What would the two of you (a) count as evidence and (b) for what exactly?

 

[Flying Pig]

Supposing the stars spelt out 'I am God' one night? This would probably show that God exists, so I would maybe believe in Him, but I wouldn't go the Church because I've no evidence for the rest of that religion.

 

[aelf]

Which claims of Christianity you were told as a kid have been proven false?

Well, some of the claims of Christianity that I've been told as a kid are also argued to be false by theologians.

Seriously, that's what I'm comparing it to. Pretending to whittle down the essential claims is (in my mind) burying the cheese in the Moon.

But, okay.
- the Creation Story (not essential)
- the consequences of Original Sin (proven false)
- the story of the Great Flood (not essential)
- and its tie to the promise to Abraham (proven false by association)
- King David (not proven false, but very unlikely)
- the prophecy of a messiah through him (unlikely through association)
- the details of Jesus's birth (rather essential)
- the details of Jesus's prophecies (rather essential)
- Paul's analogies of the spirit world by allusions to the material world (essential)
- John's Revelation (e.g.., 666. But it's so wacky, no one really cares)

This is not the meat of the analogy, though. The meat of the analogy is that we were told that Christianity is made up of cheese. And now apologists are trying to convince us that the cheese is on the inside. Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to buy it without some real evidence. Just like you won't believe that there's cheese on the inside of the Moon without some real evidence.

There's still no explanation. For those claims you say are essential, why are they false?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Whose days are those?

The Hebrew's.

 

[Flying Pig]

We think - but it never says, so I suppose that a 'day' could be however long it actually took over six; but it's unlikely

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Supposing the stars spelt out 'I am God' one night? This would probably show that God exists, so I would maybe believe in Him, but I wouldn't go the Church because I've no evidence for the rest of that religion.

Okay, you would accept a message in the stars as evidence, but for what exactly? "God" is pretty 'meaningless' after all.

 

[El_Machinae]

What would the two of you (a) count as evidence and (b) for what exactly?

Well, my standards have gotten pretty high as I matured. Direct Revelation would be okay, much like Adam, Moses, Satan, Doubting Thomas, Paul, or any of the hundreds of people who're described as having believed after seeing a sufficiently impressive miracle. Now, believers also experienced miracles, but that opportunity has already passed in my life. It was available at one point, though.

Either that, or indirect evidence. Like, a billion Christians saying "I was praying, and God told me that the Flood story is false".

Well, some of the claims of Christianity that I've been told as a kid are also argued to be false by theologians.

Sure, but in comparison, they're all just arguing about where the cheese is. Mars. Pluto. Under your bed. Whatever.

There's still no explanation. For those claims you say are essential, why are they false?

They are false for various reasons. All of them make claims about natural history, and are proven false by scientific investigation of natural history. As to why they're essential, well, they might not individually be essential, but they're all false. A car can run with a popped tyre, but not with all the visible tyres popped.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

We think - but it never says, so I suppose that a 'day' could be however long it actually took over six; but it's unlikely

There are clear demarkation lines: morning and evening. But then again, maybe those mean something else, too? How about Elohim?

 

[Flying Pig]

Okay, you would accept a message in the stars as evidence, but for what exactly? "God" is pretty 'meaningless' after all.

If I observed something to happen which could not happen without some kind of deity directing it, then I would assume that there was some kind of deity in existance.

 

[aelf]

Sure, but in comparison, they're all just arguing about where the cheese is. Mars. Pluto. Under your bed. Whatever.

You provide no justification whatsoever for this analogy, so it's meaningless.

They are false for various reasons. All of them make claims about natural history, and are proven false by scientific investigation of natural history. As to why they're essential, well, they might not individually be essential, but they're all false. A car can run with a popped tyre, but not with all the visible tyres popped.

Tell me why they are false.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If I observed something to happen which could not happen without some kind of deity directing it, then I would assume that there was some kind of deity in existance.

But you have just swapped the term God for Deity, and only offered the self-referential, definitional criterion can make stuff happen that could not otherwise happen. But what would you believe in?

 

[Flying Pig]

- the Creation Story (not essential)

We know that the world was created in circa seven billion years; not six days. We also know that people started off in a barren rift valley, not a garden; that snakes do o talk and that it is impossible to make somebody out of a rib.

- the consequences of Original Sin (proven false)

Get real - all people must work because of what these people did? Hardly the actions of a just God, and since all animals need to work the idea falls down.

- the story of the Great Flood (not essential)

There was no extinction on this scale, ever, in human history; and it would mean that we all share a common ancenstor in very reccent times; impossible.

- and its tie to the promise to Abraham (proven false by association)

Association

- King David (not proven false, but very unlikely)

Another 'get real' one - does anybody seriously believe this?

- the prophecy of a messiah through him (unlikely through association)

If Abraham made no promise, then there will be no messiah, notwithstanding the obvious problem of 'come on, God had a son with a virgin?'

- the details of Jesus's birth (rather essential)

Stars don't move like that, and the dates are impossible

- the details of Jesus's prophecies (rather essential)

They didn't come true, and can be reasonable assumed to never be about to come true

- Paul's analogies of the spirit world by allusions to the material world (essential)

Yet another 'get real' one

- John's Revelation (e.g.., 666. But it's so wacky, no one really cares)

Do I seriously need to talk about this one?

 

[El_Machinae]

You provide no justification whatsoever for this analogy, so it's meaningless.

Okay, I thought it was clear. What theologians argue about seem to be trivial details compared to the really important detail. Importantly, they can't even convince each other. I've looked at enough of their claims to realise that I'd like some proof before I believe their more fantastic claim.

Seriously, would you give any weight to any claims that there the moon is made of cheese?

Tell me why they are false.

No thanks. There's no value to me in detailing them. They're false because they describe events or world conditions which (when examined) are not true. If they're not obviously false to you, that's okay: you claim to not know much about Christianity. I'd have to explain each one and explain why they're not true.

 

[aelf]

Okay, I thought it was clear. What theologians argue about seem to be trivial details compared to the really important detail. Importantly, they can't even convince each other. I've looked at enough of their claims to realise that I'd like some proof before I believe their more fantastic claim.

Seriously, would you give any weight to any claims that there the moon is made of cheese?

No, because the claims they (or at least some of them) made are substantially different from "the moon is made of cheese". Again, I assert that there is no reason to believe that the moon is made of cheese while there is some reason to believe in at least some of the claims they made.

While really only an appeal to ignorance can convince anyone that the moon is made of cheese, the reasoning behind some of those claims are substantially more than that.

No thanks. There's no value to me in detailing them. They're false because they describe events or world conditions which (when examined) are not true. If they're not obviously false to you, that's okay: you claim to not know much about Christianity. I'd have to explain each one and explain why they're not true.

What? Since when do I claim to know little about Christianity? I probably know at least as much as you, so do go on. I'm waiting for your answer. Unless you'd rather be evasive.

 

[El_Machinae]

What? Since when do I claim to know little about Christianity? I probably know at least as much as you, so do go on. I'm waiting for your answer. Unless you'd rather be evasive.

Sorry! I misunderstood "I'm most familiar with Christianity", and your intent for stating it!

I'm not being evasive, I don't want to work all the way through a list, explaining my reasoning, so that you can pick one to discuss further. Which of my 'obviously false' references is not obvious to you? Which ones are? Which of my 'essential' points are not obviously essential? In my mind, the main focus of Christianity is that God made humans, humans are sinners, and that Jesus is the messiah. I have no reason to think that God made humans (especially considering how wrong the Creation story is). I have no reason to believe that there is a need for a messiah (the explanation is tied to untruths). I have no reason to believe that Jesus, specifically, is the messiah even.

Or, if you wish, you can list what you perceive to be the central tenets of Christianity; and I can point out which ones aren't worth believing.

Again, I assert that there is no reason to believe that the moon is made of cheese while there is some reason to believe in at least some of the claims they made.

Sure, which claims? And which claims did they further make which would invalidate their 'reasonable' claims?