Monotheism is an inferior belief system

[sourceninja]

If this is your understanding of Christianity, then you're really not at all familiar with Christianity.

To your first point, the Bible states that nobody is capable of snow-white perfection (Romans 3:23), so it is clear that the Bible is not "obsessed with it". Nor does the Bible require that Christians be perfect.

To your second point, sin can certainly cause bad things to happen, but sometimes bad things just happen. Sometimes, we don't understand why the bad things are happening. But Christians don't run around saying, "The Devil made me do it!"

To your third point, Christians don't automatically believe that God has forsaken them when bad things happen to them. However, it is OK and perfectly natural (even for Christians!) to feel that way during times of crisis. Job did. David did. Even Jesus did. But none of them cursed God for it, and none of them lost faith in God's plan for them.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm simply saying that you don't have Christianity as figured out as you might think you do.

Jesus forsaked himself.... I'm not sure how that works, but it sounds dirty.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, the Christian "The Devil" is simply saying he is the main devil...like saying The Queen...there are many queens, but one is singled out when you say The Queen (think England).

The Christian Satan is derived from the Hebrew Word HaSatan, which means The Adversary. The Devil did not come from some Celtic mythos.

Just figured you guys might want to know. Sorry to interrupt the mutual patting on the back and claiming how smart each other is for holding the faith based belief that God does not exist.

 

[Joepublic2]

Pantheism ftw. God is everything and everything is god.

 

[Ancalagon44]

As someone who was once seriously into Christianity, yes, the whole martyr mindset that is at the core of the teachings is a TERRIBLE way to go about real life.

generally, christianity teaches the wrong life lessons and results in people caring more about abortion than about how to succeed in this world.

As an Atheist, I dont think there is anything wrong with the teachings, I think there is something wrong with how they are taught. Or who they are taught be.

I mean, Jesus goes around telling people to be humble, non judgmental, loving and kind, and somehow modern Christians ignore the non judgmental part and decide to judge abortion doctors, atheists, muslims, jews, gays etc. It seems like Jesus's real message was lost and no one seems to notice.

And then we have the born agains who claim to be the only Christians, but are just as judgmental.

The Christian Satan is derived from the Hebrew Word HaSatan, which means The Adversary. The Devil did not come from some Celtic mythos.

Satanic imagery is based on Pagan imagery. They made him resemble the Greek God Pan deliberately, with his goat legs, to scare pagans into converting. His name comes from the OT/Torah, but I seem to remember that it was only later in the NT that he was personified. I think earlier mentions of the word adversary didnt carry the same connotations that it does now, of the angel who fell, the one who tempted Eve, and the being who currently resides in Hell. As far as I know, those were not necessarily the same beings before the NT came along.

Revisionist history....

 

[J-Money]

Actually, the Christian "The Devil" is simply saying he is the main devil...like saying The Queen...there are many queens, but one is singled out when you say The Queen (think England).

The Christian Satan is derived from the Hebrew Word HaSatan, which means The Adversary. The Devil did not come from some Celtic mythos.

Just figured you guys might want to know. Sorry to interrupt the mutual patting on the back and claiming how smart each other is for holding the faith based belief that God does not exist.

That's like saying it's a faith based belief that Santa Claus does not exist. It makes Christians look really, really stupid using this argument btw.

The burden of proof lies with the one claiming existence in everything in the world, except religion for some reason.

As Homer Simpson said "Faith is for things that don't exist".

Both Santa and God have zero supporting evidence yet for some reason believing in only one of them is considered childish.

 

[SagaLore]

As someone who was once seriously into Christianity, yes, the whole martyr mindset that is at the core of the teachings is a TERRIBLE way to go about real life.

generally, christianity teaches the wrong life lessons and results in people caring more about abortion than about how to succeed in this world.

I'm pretty sure he was mocking you. I think. :hmm:

 

[cybrsage]

I mean, Jesus goes around telling people to be humble, non judgmental, loving and kind, and somehow modern Christians ignore the non judgmental part and decide to judge abortion doctors, atheists, muslims, jews, gays etc. It seems like Jesus's real message was lost and no one seems to notice.

And then we have the born agains who claim to be the only Christians, but are just as judgmental.

Agreed. We are to be intolerant of SIN, but not hate the sinner.

Satanic imagery is based on Pagan imagery. They made him resemble the Greek God Pan deliberately, with his goat legs, to scare pagans into converting. His name comes from the OT/Torah, but I seem to remember that it was only later in the NT that he was personified. I think earlier mentions of the word adversary didnt carry the same connotations that it does now, of the angel who fell, the one who tempted Eve, and the being who currently resides in Hell. As far as I know, those were not necessarily the same beings before the NT came along.

Revisionist history....

Yeah, the imagry does appear to be very much like Pan. The story of Job is the one most people think about when showing Satan existed as an adversary of man in the OT days. It is said HaSatan actually caused the serpent to fall, which is why God punished the serpent to harshly...it was not Satan in the guide of a serpent. This would fit in with his role as the adversary of man. He can also be called the tempter.

By the time of the NT, he was far more evil than in the early days of the OT. Though by the end of the OT he had become much more evil than at the start.

 

[cybrsage]

That's like saying it's a faith based belief that Santa Claus does not exist. It makes Christians look really, really stupid using this argument btw.

The burden of proof lies with the one claiming existence in everything in the world, except religion for some reason.

As Homer Simpson said "Faith is for things that don't exist".

Both Santa and God have zero supporting evidence yet for some reason believing in only one of them is considered childish.

The bolded portion is not quite correct. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, regardless of what the claim is. When you claim something does not exist, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Faith is belief without proof. If you believe there is no God, and you have no proof to support this belief, you hold a faith based belief.


BTW, using a Homer Simpson quote as your support really does not help you any.

 

[Ancalagon44]

The bolded portion is not quite correct. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, regardless of what the claim is. When you claim something does not exist, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Faith is belief without proof. If you believe there is no God, and you have no proof to support this belief, you hold a faith based belief.


BTW, using a Homer Simpson quote as your support really does not help you any.

The thing is, who is making the claim? You are claiming a supernatural, all powerful omnipotent enity exists. Prove it.

I'm not claiming anything exists.

It would be the same as if I claimed a pink unicorn existed - you would ask me to prove it, and if I said to you to disprove it, well you would rightly think I was loony.

So the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that something exists - ie you.

 

[cybrsage]

The thing is, who is making the claim?

The person who says something does or does not exist makes the claim that something does or does not exist. I thought that was blatantly obvious.

You are claiming a supernatural, all powerful omnipotent enity exists. Prove it.

I did not make any such claim in this thread.

I'm not claiming anything exists.

I do not know if you claimed there is no God. I was simply correcting the false information that those who claim God does not exist do not hold a faith based belief system and that only those who make specific claims need to support their claims. Everyone who makes a claim needs to support it.

It would be the same as if I claimed a pink unicorn existed - you would ask me to prove it, and if I said to you to disprove it, well you would rightly think I was loony.

Correct, yet if you claimed a pink unicorn does not exist, you would be required to support your claim on that. Expecting someone to prove the opposite of your claim is being loony. This is basically what you said, applied evenly to everyone, and I agree with it.

While it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, having no proof whatsoever puts the belief into the realm of faith.

So the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that something exists - ie you.

No, the burden of proof is on the one making any claim. You cannot require others to disprove your statement, regardless of what that statement is.

 

[zsdersw]

We all demand proof or evidence when claims are made to us that question our preexisting beliefs.

The problem is that proof or evidence, no matter what the claim, is either trumpeted or suppressed.. more often than not.. if it supports or refutes, respectively, our preexisting beliefs.

 

[cybrsage]

True, if we agree we do not ask for supporting evidence. But that makes sense.

 

[zsdersw]

True, if we agree we do not ask for supporting evidence. But that makes sense.

It would be better for all of us to doubt more things than we believe.

 

[Juddog]

I love how many Christians don't hold other belief systems to be as valid as their own.

The typical moronic response is "well you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does exist."

For some reasons Christians tend to get offended when they ask me if I go to church and I mention that I'm a pastafarian. After all, belief in the FSM makes a heck of a lot more sense than the Christian faith. FSM doesn't have a lame-brained story about an all powerful being who raped some chick to birth himself to let himself die so that people could be forgiven by him for being born into sin, which he himself created.

I mean if I took the base parts of the story and applied it to anything else, people would think I was nuts or that I was a pretty bad fiction writer. Imagine if the bible was held to the same level of scrutiny as movies and TV shows by some of the people from the anandtech forums. The bible has over a thousand direct contradictions just in it's own text, that's not even counting the pure bullsh!t parts which don't make any sense. The bible is really a terrible piece of fiction made for inbred morons and retards to follow so that men in power could stay in power, yet somehow some intelligent people seemed to get trapped by it's logic (or lack thereof).

People of the time needed the bible because they had no moral system and needed something to keep them in check, but nowadays it's so outdated that it's really pretty ridiculous that anybody in this day and age believes it. It's literally the same thing as believing in santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy.

 

[cybrsage]

I mention that I'm a pastafarian. After all, belief in the FSM makes a heck of a lot more sense than the Christian faith.

We know the falseness of your chosen faith, as its inventor says he made it up. Having faith that it is true shows a mental disorder when the guy who invented it says it is not true, but simply was created as an attempt to be clever in an argument.

Just saying, you need to use something that is not easily proven false in your attempt to discuss things which have the potential to be true.

I removed the idiotic remainder of your post for clarity.

 

[Juddog]

We know the falseness of your chosen faith, as its inventor says he made it up. Having faith that it is true shows a mental disorder when the guy who invented it says it is not true, but simply was created as an attempt to be clever in an argument.

Just saying, you need to use something that is not easily proven false in your attempt to discuss things which have the potential to be true.

I removed the idiotic remainder of your post for clarity.

You can't prove the FSM doesn't exist - therefore your post is idiotic. If denying religion because it was made up falsifies the religion, then Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam all would have been classified as mental disorders a while ago. None of the religions mentioned have any "potential to be true" any more than FSM.

 

[sandorski]

You can't prove the FSM doesn't exist - therefore your post is idiotic. If denying religion because it was made up falsifies the religion, then Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam all would have been classified as mental disorders a while ago. None of the religions mentioned have any "potential to be true" any more than FSM.

Clearly FSM told the Prophet to tell us it was just made up to test our faith!

 

[cybrsage]

You can't prove the FSM doesn't exist - therefore your post is idiotic.

They guy who invented him says he does not exist. I am not saying you cannot hold your faith based belief system, just saying you look silly when they guy who made it up says it is not real.

If denying religion because it was made up falsifies the religion, then Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam all would have been classified as mental disorders a while ago. None of the religions mentioned have any "potential to be true" any more than FSM.

The potential to be true is there for all religions except those the creator has said he made up.

 

[cybrsage]

Clearly FSM told the Prophet to tell us it was just made up to test our faith!

Now that would be a legitimate argument to use to support it has the potential to be tue. Without this statement, there is evidence that the FSM does not exist. There is no evidence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not exist.

 

[actuarial]

I do not know if you claimed there is no God. I was simply correcting the false information that those who claim God does not exist do not hold a faith based belief system and that only those who make specific claims need to support their claims. Everyone who makes a claim needs to support it.

If you didn't know if someone claimed there is no God, maybe you shouldn't have said this:

Sorry to interrupt the mutual patting on the back and claiming how smart each other is for holding the faith based belief that God does not exist.

which is what started the whole thing. And even so your whole argument breaks down due to this:

While it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, having no proof whatsoever puts the belief into the realm of faith.

You have on one hand said that you need to prove the claim and on the other hand say it is impossible to prove. By this definition believing things do not exist is ALWAYS faith based.

No, the burden of proof is on the one making any claim. You cannot require others to disprove your statement, regardless of what that statement is.

Practically though, it should be easy to disprove a claim that something doesn't exist. If you claimed the United States of America doesn't exist, I could show you ample evidence that it does. While disproving a claim that something does exist is functionally impossible.

 

[Darwin333]

That's like saying it's a faith based belief that Santa Claus does not exist. It makes Christians look really, really stupid using this argument btw.

The burden of proof lies with the one claiming existence in everything in the world, except religion for some reason.

As Homer Simpson said "Faith is for things that don't exist".

Both Santa and God have zero supporting evidence yet for some reason believing in only one of them is considered childish.

What I have always found ironic is that almost always it is the parents who determine the religion of their children for obvious reasons. I am not sure about other cultures and "Santa" but I know just about every Christian (in the US at least) teaches their kids about Santa at the very same time they are introducing them to their religion. Yet years later they tell their kids that only one of those things is bullshit even though they both kind of sound the same.

 

[actuarial]

Now that would be a legitimate argument to use to support it has the potential to be tue. Without this statement, there is evidence that the FSM does not exist. There is no evidence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not exist.

Now you're mixing proof and evidence. Even without that statement, there is no PROOF that FSM does not exist.

I have as much evidence that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob do not exist as I have that pink unicorns, Big Foot and Nessie do not exist - a lifetime of not seeing it mixed with no one proving they do.

Technically, I have seen at least some evidence that Big Foot does exist, but not enough to reject the null hypothesis that people hold with nearly every case (aside from religion) that if you can't prove it exists you assume it does not.

 

[Darwin333]

Now that would be a legitimate argument to use to support it has the potential to be tue. Without this statement, there is evidence that the FSM does not exist. There is no evidence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not exist.

I am not following, without that statement what evidence is there that the FSM doesn't exist?

 

[cybrsage]

If you didn't know if someone claimed there is no God, maybe you shouldn't have said this:

You did not quote the correct thing. If you had, you would see it was a general statement made to everyone, not to one individual, which is what you are pretending it was.

which is what started the whole thing. And even so your whole argument breaks down due to this:

You have on one hand said that you need to prove the claim and on the other hand say it is impossible to prove. By this definition believing things do not exist is ALWAYS faith based.

Nope. Faith is belief without proof. Does not need to be 100% proof, simply beyond a reasonable doubt proof. Let us use theoretical science as an example. If you made a claim without any proof, you would be laughed at. If you made a claim with VERY VERY little proof, people would not take you seriuosly. If you made a claim with a good bit of proof, you would be taken seriously. People would start to believe you could be right if you used a good bit of proof. If you have no proof at all...well, it is a faith based belief. In science, faith based beliefs are called assumptions. They are an accepted and required part of any theoretical science.

Practically though, it should be easy to disprove a claim that something doesn't exist. If you claimed the United States of America doesn't exist, I could show you ample evidence that it does. While disproving a claim that something does exist is functionally impossible.

If I claimed Coelacanth do not exist (that they went extinct 65 million years ago) and you wanted me to prove it, I would not have been able to do so...at least prior to 1938 when they found a bunch of them quite alive and doing well in South Africa. They were extinct...until we found they were not.

http://www.phenomenica.com/2009/11/13-extinct-animals-found-alive.html

If I said there are no pink unicorns and you wanted me to prove it, I could not...at least until someone actually found one....if they actually do exist. See my point? Some things are impossible to prove they do not exist. You are correct, somethings are possible to prove they exist...but that is the minority of items which can potentially exist.

 

[cybrsage]

I am not following, without that statement what evidence is there that the FSM doesn't exist?

Sorry, without the thought that the inventor of the FSM is lying to test the faithful. Since the inventor of the FSM said he made it all up, that is some pretty good proof it is all made up. But, using the "test the faithful" argument, it falls back into the realm of faith again.