Does Christianity basically boil down to brainwashing and indoctrination? - General Discussion Discussion

Like any other ideology, yes.

reply

(Frankly, you'd have to be an even bigger fool to fall for socialism)

reply

Tell that to, basically, the entire developed world outside of the US, certainly Europe/UK/Australia/NZ/Canada/Israel, much of Asia & Africa.

I'm guessing you don't get out much, physically or cognitively.

reply

[–] SandyR (7724) 8 months ago

Good thing you don't get paid for guessing. I've lived in multiple communist countries. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

You, on the other hand...

reply

[–] SandyR (7724) 8 months ago

QED

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

the opposite of Christianity isnt socialism... also show me all these socialists? 99% of people are mixed market capitalists who simply disagree on tax rates, or how far social programs should go.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12889) 8 months ago

No. You're thinking of groups of people who have very extreme views on Christianity and are part of a community that demands conformity.

Christianity at its heart is not about conformity, it's about teaching people about Jesus Christ and about trying to serve God the best way you can (He knows we're all flawed humans and aren't perfect) by following a set of rules that say what's right and what's wrong (some of which are universal among human cultures, like don't murder people). It's not actually required to go to church every Sunday, and all that extra stuff is about being part of the community at church. You can worship at home if you want, and some people have to anyway if there is no house of worship in town.

Sunday school is about teaching kids about Jesus and the Bible in a way they can understand. Whether they choose to become a Christian or not is their personal decision. Nobody can make that for them. If they choose not to, it's not because they are a bad person. Even better, they will not be cast out or excluded, and if they want to come back, they're always welcome. That's what the story of the Prodigal Son is all about.

Real Christianity is not a cult. It has over 2 billion followers on the planet, whereas most cults have only tiny groups of people following them. We don't demand you cut off relations with your family if you join (in fact we encourage you to include your family and friends), we don't demand you move into some compound and wear a uniform, we don't demand you give up your identity as an individual, and we certainly don't advocate mass suicide. If you leave, we don't exclude you and never talk to you again.

I don't know what brand of Christianity you've been hearing about, but it's probably a sect that isn't very nice, probably would be considered a Gnostic church in times of old, and is probably lying about God's message and adding stuff to it that has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches.

reply

[–] michaelDclarke (1691) 8 months ago

What are your thoughts on the Westboro Baptist Church?

--Michael D. Clarke

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12889) 8 months ago

They are a horrible hate group that twists the teachings of the Bible to give them a reason to be nasty to people.

I honestly think that if those people lived in Spain during the Inquisition, the Spanish Catholic Church would have hired them immediately for torturing and interrogating people.

reply

[–] michaelDclarke (1691) 8 months ago

I find them quite fascinating actually. I've watched many of their interviews on YouTube. I think the interviews they give to mainstream media, sometimes they can exaggerate things for show. But if you listen to their interviews from non-mainstream source, they do come off as educated and smart as long as you treat them with respect. Most of them are lawyers. They even won the landmark "Free Speech" Supreme court case back in 2010, so clearly they're no dummies and clearly know the law.

Although, I do agree they have some "wacky" views which I don't always agree with. Not sure I would call them a "hate" group though.

--Michael D. Clarke

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12889) 8 months ago

That's because they're putting on a show for the cameras. They spend a lot of their time counter-protesting a lot of things most Christians (and decent people) would actually care about, and spewing a lot of venom, particularly the wife of the founder of the group.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15553) 7 months ago

Fed-Op to promote hate and division.

reply

[–] michaelDclarke (1691) 7 months ago

They're probably just professional trolls.

--Michael D. Clarke

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15553) 7 months ago

Sometimes those things seem too coincidental for it to be real.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

I don't think you can call the 2 billion who label themselves as Christians on a census as genuine converts. The RCC for eg which has the most amount of members is clearly a false church.

reply

[–] jriley555 (7239) 7 months ago

what would not not be clearly false churches ?

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 7 months ago

Well any Christian church that puts the Bible (the word of God) above "tradition". It would also include a church that doesn't teach the false "prosperity gospel" which is basically the "Law of Attraction" disguised as Christianity. False teachers that preach this doctrine include, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Benny Hinn. An American church that I would consider genuine would be Grace Community Church led by John Macarthur. Sound preachers and expositors of the Bible are the aforementioned Macarthur, Justin Peters, Voddie Baucham, James White, Paul Washer, to name a few. It would also have to be a church that hasn't caved to the woke brigade and compromised the gospel. Hope that helps!

reply

[–] jriley555 (7239) 7 months ago

I understand you. It should be mentioned, though, that even the earliest church fathers interpreted the emergent sacred writings and tha pentateuch allegorically, not literally. This is actually a later tradition. It took three centuries to hammer out an orthodoxy regarding the nature of Christ & the Trinity.

Whatever view one might hold to concerning the (objectively extravagant claim of the) divinity of Jesus, contending that every word or narrative or assertion in the bible is literally true is not a tenable theological position to take. To outside observers, Protestants got rid of many false idols (Pope & Hierarchy & Sacraments & Church Authority & Traditions), inserted in place of all, the Bible, became enmeshed in figuring out the mind of God & the nature of his creation in sorting out matters of personal agency/free will & salvation/destiny. These were real theological/philosophical problems, the Calvinists resolved them with a radical doctrine, having a clear disestablishment motive.

At bottom, what is true or false is, outside of objectively demonstrable propositions, purely a matter of personal opinion, informed/inculcated within a community of traditional belief. To an outside observer, the distinctions between an RC and a Southern Baptist are largely inconsequential. On the rock-bottom basics (Christ's divinity & the Trinity & the requirement of grace for salvation) they agree.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 7 months ago

I don't see how Calvinism is "radical doctrine". It has plenty of Biblical support vs the Arminian position.
I agree that to an outside observer the differences are inconsequential but most outside observers don't even read/know what the Bible says. If they read it for themselves, they would understand why Catholicism is problematic as being under the banner of Christianity.

"On the rock-bottom basics (Christ's divinity & the Trinity & the requirement of grace for salvation) they agree."

Depends what is meant by "rock bottom basics". For example, you mention grace but Catholics have a different idea of what is meant by grace. They believe it is "acquired" by performing the sacraments even though they supposedly deny salvation by works. No different to every other religion that believes in attaining salvation by works. Protestants (for lack of a better term) believe grace is God's unmerited favour. You cannot "earn grace" and therefore be saved by "righteous acts or works (this would include Catholic sacraments)". Isaiah 64:6 says our good deeds are like filthy rags to God because they are tainted by our sins.

Council of Trent: Session 6, canon 9. If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that you are saved by grace through faith, not of works and this is not of yourselves. IE, you cannot "co-operate in order to obtain grace". Catholics believe this Bible verse is anathema according to the Council of Trent.

reply

[–] jriley555 (7239) 7 months ago

The passage you just quoted from the Council of Trent seems to me to be saying rather plainly that the individual will to 'co-operate' is required for justification. Are we automatons, have no right of refusal ? In the end, a lot of it is semantics. Yes, grovel about, but be sure to start 'doing' the right things, above all. THAT is the important thing. THAT is what you can encourage people on concretely & attitudinally, THAT is what can actually be assessed, makes a difference outwardly, conditions attitudes internally.

At bottom what I contend with is your certitude that the doctrinal minutiae you hold to be guiding within a larger faith context, all of which is from debatable even from inside to beyond dubious to outside, is anything other than an opinion you share only with other fairly precisely-minded individuals. To which you are, of course, entitled. But since you pronounce on what is true or false, you certainly rate being challenged.

Regarding Calvin, since Jesus tells us he himself does not know the mind of God regarding the hour of 'the coming of the Son of Man' (wait, I thought Jesus was the 'Son of Man'...), where does Calvin or anyone else get off ferreting out either the first or last word regarding justification or the fixity of anyone's eternal destiny. I understand the apparent requirement, to satisfy a notion of Divine omniscience (neglecting, again, Jesus' ignorance concerning certain matters of the Father), but that wouldn't be of any use to individual humans, or anything much to get hung up about - its mainly a buzz kill, it smells of oppression & predestined disapprobation on struggling vulnerable individuals, communities, cultures, races, other faith traditions.

But just as for you, as for me that's just an opinion of, in my case, an apostate, who makes no extravagant claims of any sort, including ultimate truths :)

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 7 months ago

Cooperation in order to obtain grace is an unBiblical position. Grace is unmerited. Ephesians 1 is clear those chosen for salvation, were chosen before the world was formed "in accordance with the good pleasure of his will". The text never says that God based his decision to save on works or decide who would receive mercy based on man's choices. In fact, scripture says man is unable to come to God on his own volition and that men are at enmity with God since they are dead in their sins. (John 6:44, Romans 8:7, Ephesians 2:1-3)

"Regarding Calvin, since Jesus tells us he himself does not know the mind of God regarding the hour of 'the coming of the Son of Man' (wait, I thought Jesus was the 'Son of Man'...), where does Calvin or anyone else get off ferreting out either the first or last word regarding justification or the fixity of anyone's eternal destiny. "

This is a non-sequitur. Calvin doesn't know which individuals are saved nor did he claim to, so not sure how that has any relevance to his opinion on justification which indeed has sound Biblical support.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73683) 8 months ago

I very much believe in Christ but am no longer involved in any formal type of church. The church let me down big time even though I regularly tithed, attended services, had two kids enrolled in a Catholic school to the tune of ten thousand dollars per year and volunteered my time to it. I ran their Cub Scouts program in our region. I always volunteered to sell cookies, Christmas trees and wreaths and recruit new kids into the program every year.

EVERY event and fund raiser, my wife and I were totally involved. Then, when a young person close to me needed a bit of academic help the Church acted like they didn't know me at all. After years of work and devotion they more or less told me and my family to piss off and that hurt. I wasn't asking for favors, just some time for a good kid to catch up in class. The Catholic Church is an interesting subject for historical research but it's no longer something I want to be involved with.

The Catholic Church is NOT spoken of in my house anymore. AT ALL. I do not put up with any religious (or political) chatter under this roof.
I won't have it.

If Jesus Christ came back tomorrow he'd tear down all of these deceitful, money grubbing and dishonest churches.
Spirituality lives in your heart, I don't need a gaggle of celibate, inexperienced weirdos in Rome telling me 'the truth.'

reply

[–] jriley555 (7239) 8 months ago

I get that. One of the biggest infirmities of the RC structure is that the priests are imposed on the parishes, serve largely without any sort of empowered over-sight by the laity. Also, a lot of them are closeted gays, who wanted a risk-free comfortable lifestyle. Its just fundamentally an unhealthy structure of church leadership.

Obviously, there are lots of phonies in the Reform churches as well, but they aren't baked in quite as well as the Catholics for self-selecting socially awkward maladapted personality types.

I'm an agnostic/atheist, so factor that in. But I'm no stranger to the RC church, have some exposure to the Lutherans. My experience within the Unitarians has been very positive.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (73683) 8 months ago

I find the topic of religion difficult to speak about. People judge each other on the basis of their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, it's a weird thing.
Maybe if people didn't beat each other up so much about spirituality we'd all be better off for it. But I won't hold my breath.

In general the old rule applies...Politics, sex and religion are three topics to avoid in an average conversation.
Nobody is going to change anybody's mind so why bother..?

Cheers riley, good talk.
Can you attend MCMC tonight?
The more the merrier.

reply

[–] StoneKeeper (22876) 8 months ago

“If Jesus Christ came back tomorrow he'd tear down all of these deceitful, money grubbing and dishonest churches.
Spirituality lives in your heart, I don't need a gaggle of celibate, inexperienced weirdos in Rome telling me 'the truth”

Now that’s Big Fact!!

reply

[–] samoanjoes (53068) 8 months ago

Depends who's preaching it, but it's the same for all religions.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

No religion has any good evidence, or any evidence exclusive to their religion alone. they all make claims they cannot back up

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 8 months ago

Organized religion and the ways in which it's organized definitely boils down to those things. But Christianity is at its core about following the teachings of Christ, who was in his time a radical, and so much of what he taught and how he lived is in direct conflict with the ideals today's Christian churches spout. Most of these things didn't even exist in Christ's time, they were made up by today's churches.

reply

[–] db20db (16573) 8 months ago

One of the most telling comments I ever encountered in a chat room once was, when a participant told me, "I'm not a Christian. I'm a Roman Catholic."

reply

[–] scannerdarkly (1313) 8 months ago

Reading your comment made me think of a topic I saved because it was so disturbing and this excerpt here may actually shed more light on them posting that. Maybe they really ARENT Christian if they are a serving member of roman catholicism???

"In Dostoevsky's, The Brothers Karamazov, there is a poem titled The Grand Inquisitor. The premise presents Jesus returning to Earth during the time of the Inquisition. He begins performing miracles again, and starts to be loved by those around him. Shortly thereafter, he is imprisoned by The Inquisition, and sentenced to be burnt to death. In prison, he visited by The Grand Inquisitor, who tells him that the church no longer needs him. He states that Jesus’ overall message was that people needed to choose redemption and salvation, but human nature, because of choice, dooms most of humanity to miss salvation and suffer. The Inquisitor says that, "man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil" and that it is better for individuals and society that people trade their freedom of choice for "miracle, mystery, and authority."

He thinks himself a person capable of freedom of choice and that it is up to men like him to run society, rationalizing that the rest of humanity will live their lives relatively happy, but in complete ignorance. The story takes the idea that man simply will not accept the supernatural--that is, the perfect order descended from the heavens--in whatever manner it appears, because they are already consigned to rule.

The Inquisitor admits to Christ that centuries ago, the church had abandoned Jesus to follow Satan, saying they accepted the offer Jesus denied in the desert where he was tempted to worship the devil in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world; in taking up such an exchange, they planned to become the sole rulers of Earth and, eventually, bring happiness to all mankind."

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

He is right though. The RCC has a very low view of the Bible. They even amended the 10 commandments (removed the 2nd and split the 10th) to allow for the worship/idolatry of Mary and other idols.

reply

[–] db20db (16573) 8 months ago

How did you interpret or should I say misinterpret, "...one of the most telling comments I ever encountered..." as disagreeing with him?

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

It made it sound like you disagreed with Christians who took issue with Roman Catholics being under the banner of Christianity.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7511) 8 months ago

So how is it a Christian teaching Christianity to their children is brainwashing but an athiest teaching their children to be athiests isn't brainwashing? Explain that to me.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

its not obvious? Christianity is a belief system. atheism isnt. its a lack of belief. atheism is not anymore an ideology than not believing in santa clause is.

a Christian parent teaches them theres one true god and you have to or should believe. every Christian child was taught about hell for sin and non believers. you are literally being indoctrinated to one specific religion under threat of torture from god

I dont know many "hardcore radical" atheists forcing their kids into non belief. Or offering any sort of threat of punishment or consequences even close to eternal hell. or for the most part really taking a super hard position and making them conform to the same belief.. it tends to be alot more laissez faire of "i dont really believe in god" or "i dont believe or have evidence, maybe there is one i am not convinced and have not seen any evidence"

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7511) 8 months ago

I think that's utter nonsense and now don't want to talk to you. I am a Christian and think you and the TC are fools.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

I think that's utter nonsense

such nonsense you couldnt even show where i was wrong.

now don't want to talk to you.

escape and flee quick! wouldnt want to have your feelings challenged and dare defend things you believe (even though your bible tells you to). that would take using your brain.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

I disagree. Richard Dawkins said seeing Jesus in the clouds or hearing a loud booming voice coming from God, would not be sufficient proof of God's existence, he would think he was hallucinating. His belief in the non-existence of God is so strong that he would not even believe his own eyes and ears in a scenario where God revealed himself. That surpasses a mere "lack of belief". Not saying all atheists are at that level but it says a lot when this is coming from one of their champions.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

1. richard dawkins is one person and thats his opinion there are different types of agnostics/atheists. he would not be convinced by what i would agree with is bad evidence.

2. People see delusions all the time. our senses are wrong and there are other explanations for what people see. how mamny elvis spottings have there been?

3. you have accounts like what richard dawkins described all over the world by people from various religions. muslims, jews, christians, Buddhists all claim to see miraculous things like the example dawkins gave.

so which religion is right? they've all seen miracles and they cant all be right?? but they can all be wrong and we know humans imagine/ have delusions and mental breaks all the time. What dawkins said is logical and makes total sense. Personal testimony is incredibly unreliable, and we know people claim to see thngs that never happened. this explanation is a far far better explanation for what richard would have seen than "it was god". a natural explanation we know happens and explains it perfectly is superior to supernatural one we have no solid evidence for.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

You are missing my point. Dawkins would literally deny reality in the event that God proved his existence to him. If you no longer trust your eyes and ears, then what can you trust? We base our beliefs on observations. Dawkins bases his atheism on what he has observed in nature. So he can trust his eyes and ears when he observes the world but if God reveals himself, it must be a hallucination. Well what if reality is itself a form of hallucination like the matrix? See how this logic is inconsistent.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

Dawkins would literally deny reality in the event that God proved his existence to him.

that is horrible "proof" which i demonstrated to you already. we know people have delusions, are mistaken, see things, go crazy etc. how does dawkins know what he saw was actually from god and not a dellusion? Why did god chose to give Dawkins "proof" in such a crap way it cant be distinguished from a dellusion. you are a chrsitan right? meaning you think all the other people of other religions who claim to see things like your dawkins example, as wrong. so how do you distinguish these?

If you no longer trust your eyes and ears, then what can you trust?

maybe better evidence? like actual evidence verified by others? yes we know our eyes and ears are wrong all the time and people see things. this is the least controversial statement ever. look at the sun! it clearly goes around the earth! you can see it with your own eyes! what you no longer trust your eyes? see how im demonstrating that your comment is foolish

We base our beliefs on observations. Dawkins bases his atheism on what he has observed in nature. So he can trust his eyes and ears when he observes the world but if God reveals himself, it must be a hallucination.

hes a scientist so what are you talking about? science doesnt rely on "well i saw it so it must be true". it relies on peer review, testing and verification. to make sure that single individuals "eyes and ears" didnt make a mistake. and in fact what they calim they observed, did indeed happen. your god revealing himself example is absolute junk because its not any sort of good, strong, verifiable evidence. we also have far far better explanations for what dawkins saw which i already mentioned.

Well what if reality is itself a form of hallucination like the matrix? See how this logic is inconsistent

no not at all cause it isnt.

so how is it every single religion and its followers all claim to have revelations from their gods, which are different than your god? if they are mistaken then why couldn't dawkins experience be the same. and what evidence would you have that "no Dawkins got a REAL revelation from the REAL god". and how would you show this, and distingush it from the other religions, or just a delusion?

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

"hes a scientist so what are you talking about? science doesnt rely on "well i saw it so it must be true". it relies on peer review, testing and verification. to make sure that single individuals "eyes and ears" didnt make a mistake. and in fact what they calim they observed, did indeed happen."

Even if 100 scientists observed God talking to them, he would call it a mass delusion. He said there is literally nothing God could do (if he really existed) to prove his existence to Dawkins. That goes beyond being a scientist and being objective, (scientists are supposed to entertain all possibilities, indeed some, even many scientists would accept some kind of revelation or many revelations from God as proof of his existence). He mocks religious zealotry and yet the concept of God creating the universe and existing is completely unfathomable to him to the point where he would deny any amount of evidence presented to him. That puts him on the level with Cultists he frequently mocks.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

you are dodging. its why you are down to addressing only 1 of my points and ignoring the rest

Even if 100 scientists observed God talking to them, he would call it a mass delusion.

what the hell does them being a scientist have to do with the reliability and strength of a personal claim? you may as well say 100 bus drivers or office clerks. the only reason i brought up science is because i was calling out your nonsense about eyes and ear and first being a unreliable (and demonstrated this to be true) compared to how the scientific method works. it has nothing to do with 100 scientists claiming they had an experince. that would be no more ocnvincing than 100 pilots. you missed the point entirely.

He said there is literally nothing God could do (if he really existed) to prove his existence to Dawkins

provide the quote. i am highly highly dubious of this. Also you havent given a shred of proof. youve offered a silly "what if" that wouldnt be good evidence even if it happened. as ive demonstrated.

That goes beyond being a scientist and being objective, (scientists are supposed to entertain all possibilities, indeed some, even many scientists would accept some kind of revelation or many revelations from God as proof of his existence)

ive explained to you twice now why your "revelation evidence" is total nonsense. and twice now you have completely dodged it. i can only conclude you are doing so purpsoely because you cant address it

He mocks religious zealotry and yet the concept of God creating the universe and existing is completely unfathomable to him even if he actually does exist.

Who wouldnt mock religious zealots. they are all screaming at eachother "no my sky daddy is the real one yours is the fake one! no you are going to my gods hell im not going to yours"

its abunch of people argueing about whose imaginary friend is the real one.

he, like myself, wants evidence. Demonstrate god created the universe and exists. Give me good evidence. its not completely unfathomable, IF YOU have evidence. got any?

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

"provide the quote. i am highly highly dubious of this. Also you havent given a shred of proof. youve offered a silly "what if" that wouldnt be good evidence even if it happened. as ive demonstrated."

I never came here to prove or debate the existence of God, I came here to point out Dawkins' hypocrisy and that the level of zealotry in many atheists is equivalent to those of their religious counterparts.

So what would persuade you...
Dawkins: Well I am starting to think nothing would, which in a way goes against the grain because I've always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbS5KfVWDyM&t=744s
See minute 7:00 plus in the video

"he, like myself, wants evidence. Demonstrate god created the universe and exists. Give me good evidence. its not completely unfathomable, IF YOU have evidence. got any?"

No he doesn't want evidence. He stated there is nothing that could be presented to him that could convince him of God existing. God declaring his existence using stars to write it, is more likely to be a "delusion or alien tricksters".

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

I never came here to prove or debate the existence of God, I came here to point out Dawkins' hypocrisy and that the level of zealotry in many atheists is equivalent to those of their religious counterparts.

then you are just making up hypothetics that didnt happen and prove nothing. and your hypothetical was nonsense. which ive shown again and again. which you wont touch again and again. as i said you clearly know you have no rebuttal.

its not equivalent. Atheists say "have any evidence and ill change my mind?" and religious people say "i dont need evidence i have faith!"

So what would persuade you...
Dawkins: Well I am starting to think nothing would, which in a way goes against the grain because I've always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming...

nice of you leave out what happened after where he says "I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. The trouble is I can’t think what that evidence would look like"

i dont know what evidence either would convince me. all that is important is do you have any?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbS5KfVWDyM&t=744s
See minute 7:00 plus in the video

christians love to provide hypotheticals of "what if god actually gave you all this evidence! see you wouldnt believe anyways!". But never actually give any evidence. that video clip is a pointless exercise in boring mental masterbation where Christians whine that athetist standards of evidence are too high and never give any.

No he doesn't want evidence. He stated there is nothing that could be presented to him that could convince him of God existing.

WRONG. what he said was "I can’t think what that evidence would look like"". the quote you ommitted on purpose to mislead :) you've now gone into misrepresentation territory and dishonesty. what you said he said and what he actually said are two very different statement. but the thing is if there was a god, he would know what would convince me and Dawkins, and be able to present it. He hasnt.

God declaring his existence using stars to write it, is more likely to be a "delusion or alien tricksters".

yes how would YOU DISTINGUISH god writing that in the stars vs a highly highly advanced alien species millions of years ahead of us doing that? the point is you cant. You also cant demonstrate likeliness at all, how would you calculate that? but as i said above if god did exist he would have the knowledge and power to present convincing evidence to everyone. so i can only conclude

1. he wont or doesnt want to
2.he doesnt exist

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

WRONG. what he said was "I can’t think what that evidence would look like"". the quote you ommitted on purpose :) those are two very different statement. you've now gone into misrepresentation territory and dishonesty. but the thing is if there was a god, he would know what would convince me, or Dawkins, and be able to present it.

If God declaring in the stars in multiple languages that he exists isn't evidence enough (can simply be dismissed as a delusion or super advanced alien tricksters), then you are being disingenuous when you say Dawkins "is looking for evidence" and that I am "misrepresenting him".

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

iv explained it for you already, it seems i have to explain everything twice.

AGAIN how would YOU DISTINGUISH god writing that in the stars vs a highly highly advanced alien species millions of years ahead of us doing that?

you seem to love to dodge questions and just reiterate what you said again.

you are misrepresenting him. that is a fact. you claimed he said 'He said there is literally nothing God could do (if he really existed) to prove his existence to Dawkins. "

when you left out the end where he clearly said "The trouble is I can’t think what that evidence would look like""

again different things

ill also reiterate your first post since you dodged and it relates to this point about distinguishing between two things and giving an explanation

I disagree. Richard Dawkins said seeing Jesus in the clouds or hearing a loud booming voice coming from God, would not be sufficient proof of God's existence, he would think he was hallucinating. His belief in the non-existence of God is so strong that he would not even believe his own eyes and ears in a scenario where God revealed himself. That surpasses a mere "lack of belief". Not saying all atheists are at that level but it says a lot when this is coming from one of their champions.

every single other religions followers have people who claim they saw or heard or had a revelation from god. how do you distinguish they are wrong and your particular sect of religion is right and has true revelations?

how did you determine that? you seem to like to make claims about knoweldge you cant possibly demonstrate. whether its here or in the other hypothetic about knowing its god not aliens.

Again notice. you provide ZERO evidence. just more hypotheticals about "what if you had this evidence!" but still no actual evdience.

your nonsense hypotheticals are as relevant as me saying "what if i provided you evidence god DIDNT exist?!?! would you disbelieve then!". and acting like its as significant offering that hypothetical as actually doing it.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

Are you telling me one of the most well-known scientists can't think of a tiny example/scenario where he could be convinced of the existence of God?

Sorry, but if even he can't think up a scenario then its abundantly clear that there is nothing that can convince him. FYI, aliens writing in the stars is as outlandish as God writing, so why is one more "feasible" than the other? God himself could be an alien.

Im dodging questions because you seem to want to get into a grand debate about the existence of God which Im not particularly interested in doing (largely because its quite clear where you stand and you don't seem to be particularly open-minded if you agree with Dawkins' star-writing scenario). Im only here to address Dawkins' hypocrisy.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

Are you telling me one of the most well-known scientists can't think of a tiny example/scenario where he could be convinced of the existence of God?

it doesnt matter if he was a janitor. if god exists he has the power to and would know what would convince Dawkins. its not Dawkins job to do what your supposed god can. all that matters is that if there is convincing evidence.

Sorry, but if even he can't think up a scenario then its abundantly clear that there is nothing that can convince him.

that doesnt make sense logically.

FYI, aliens writing in the stars is as outlandish as God writing, so why is one more "feasible" than the other?

EXACTLY Exactly holy crap you are finally getting it! aliens writing WOULD be just as outlandish. im not saying one is more feasible, im saying the opposite. I doesnt know which is more feasible or would be the proper explanation. ergo its not proof of one way or the other. ergo its not proof of god.

i also believe you cant demonstrate which one it is, but you claim to know its more likely itd be god. a claim you cant demonstrate. once again, i dont claim to know things. once again you calim to know things you cant demonstrate.

Im dodging questions because you seem to want to get into a grand debate about the existence of God which Im not particularly interested in doing

no youve dodged since comment one even on topics that have nothing to do with the existence of god. a quick scroll up shows that. including my quote form you in my last comment about how you distinguish between a real god revelation and a fake one. or a real one from your Christian god, vs a fake muslim believer claiming to have seen god. nothing to do with a grand debate about the existence of god. its about YOU making claims you cannot back up. which you do alot. so of course you dodged.

nice try though!

largely because its quite clear where you stand and you don't seem to be particularly open-minded if you agree with Dawkins' star-writing scenario). Im only here to address Dawkins' hypocrisy.

nice attempt to slander. i actually am open minded... to evidence... got any? also if i agre with dawkins it shows im incredibly open minded. as I am open minded to it being possibly god OR possibly aliens. meanwhile YOU are close minded and ONLY believe it could be god. checkmate.

i have shown above why Dawkins is right on the star writing scenario. its not conclusive proof one way or the other. it could be explained by either. you cant demonstrate it was def god. ergo its not good evidence one way or the other

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

"i also believe you cant demonstrate which one it is, but you claim to know its more likely itd be god. a claim you cant demonstrate."

You are straw-manning. I am making a point about the burden of proof required to satisfy Dawkins. Nowhere did I say that God writing in the stars would be a more likely scenario than Aliens doing it, it simply highlights how far Dawkins is willing to go to deny the existence of God. A supernatural event like that would be hard to explain but its telling that his first instinct is to give credit to Aliens (we have no proof of them either) over a potential "God".

"its about YOU making claims you cannot back up."

Which claims have I made? You seem to like putting words in my mouth. I haven't made any claims apart from what Dawkins has been quoted as saying.

Why do u keep asking if I have evidence? If a supernatural event like God writing in the stars in multiple languages couldn't satisfy you, what is a meagre human like me going to provide for you?

I think you need to look up the definition of slander btw because nothing I said could be construed as such.

You're too unpleasant for me to want to continue engaging with, I do applaud the attempted baiting though, have a nice day.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

You are straw-manning. I am making a point about the burden of proof required to satisfy Dawkins. Nowhere did I say that God writing in the stars would be a more likely scenario than Aliens doing it, it simply highlights how far Dawkins is willing to go to deny the existence of God. A supernatural event like that would be hard to explain but its telling that his first instinct is to give credit to Aliens (we have no proof of them either) over a potential "God".

if you are claiming he would be denying evidence of god with the stars analogy, then you ARE claiming its evidence of god specifically.

also you dont understand what burden of proof means... you are using it wrong...

holy crap how many times do i need to explain this to you?

his first instinct isn't to give credit to aliens. his first instinct is that advanced aliens or god COULD be potential explanations. and since you cant demonstrate one is more likely than the other, then it is not good evidence of one. since no one explanation comes out on top.

let me simplify it. its like hearing scratching in your ceiling. and me saying, "well it could be squirels or chipmunks". and you proclaiming " this simply highlights how far you is willing to go to deny the a squirrel did it!. A natural event like that would be hard to explain but its telling that your first instinct is to give credit to chipmunks over a potential squirrels."

i and dawkins dont know if its chipmunks(aliens) or Squirrels (god). we arent assigning likeliness of one over the other because we do not have enough evidnece. meanwhile YOU claim it IS evidence of god.

again we are open minded. unlike you.

Why do u keep asking if I have evidence? If a supernatural event like God writing in the stars in multiple languages couldn't satisfy you, what is a meagre human like me going to provide for you?

ive been over this four times now........................how is this hard for you? you cant prove god did that writing. but notice YET AGAIN you offer a hypothetic "what is god provided evidence" as if that is the evidence. rather than you actually providing any.

the slander (well libel) was when you claimed you didnt want to talk about evidence for god because im not open minded.

which is a lie. and i proved how im more open minded than you.

ya all that baiting. where i showed your nonsense was nonsense. sucks having to back up your claims huh?

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

Its not libel either. lol. I did not claim anything. Saying "it seems like..." is not a claim. You pretty much straw man me at every possible point and you wonder why I can't be bothered replying to every single one of your questions.

"sucks having to back up your claims huh?"

No, it sucks having to engage with people who struggle with reading comprehension.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

im not arguing it as a literal legal violation, i was using slander colloqually as in you were lying about me.which you were. i demonstrated how my mind is more open then yours. you are lying that i strawmanned you.

You pretty much straw man me at every possible point and you wonder why I can't be bothered replying to every single one of your questions.

that is a cop out to make excuses and dodge. you did it since reply 1 and theres not a single strawman point it out. you cant keep up with simple logic. its why i have to explain everything to you 4 times and you still get it wrong.

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/654ffb1c569328467cd47c92/Does-Christianity-basically-boil-down-to-brainwashing-and-indoctrination?reply=655342fead8109665e8a908c

you are just disingenous and lying. not a single strawman here you just dodged cause you had no answer. its why you still havent touched explaining how we would know a vision from god is real or a delusion. not once.

No, it sucks having to engage with people who struggle with reading comprehension.

ya where i explain to you the alien vs god thing 5 times and you still dont get it. every single step ive had to dismantle your stupid arguments. and you just run from them and go to the next one. i dismantle it, and you dont address any rebuttal or question, on to the next.

you have no arguement. you dodged the tough questions. lied about me not being open minded,

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

you claimed He isnt open to evidence. and then in your first comment. proceeded to provide the most garbage evidence no one should take seriously.

seeing Jesus in the clouds or hearing a loud booming voice coming from God, would not be sufficient proof of God's existence, he would think he was hallucinating. His belief in the non-existence of God is so strong that he would not even believe his own eyes and ears in a scenario where God revealed himself. That surpasses a mere "lack of belief"

i questioned you on this and demonstrated why its bad evidence. and you wouldn't address anything i said.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 8 months ago

Please don't pm me. If my arguments are so bad, leave them be. I have already stated I have no desire to continue engaging with you. Apparently I need to educate myself on arguing, but while we are on the topic of being educated, it appears you need to educate yourself on how to spell, punctuate, and comprehend written language.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 8 months ago

haventt desire to continue, yet you have replied multiple multiple times now

ohh spelling and punctuation nitpicking. what people do when they ahve no argument.

as for comprehension, ive understood everythng clear. i havent once gotten what you said wrong. this is just the strategy of someone desperate.

you have dodged point after point after point since the first comment. claimed i was strawmanning as an excuse.

shame god didn't give you honest.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15553) 7 months ago

its not obvious? Christianity is a belief system. atheism isnt.

Atheism absolutely is a belief system... a belief system that there is no god.

Not teaching your children to believe in something is the same as teaching them to believe in nothing.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 7 months ago

non belief isnt a belief system. its like saying "i dont believe in santa clause is a belief system"

Not teaching your children to believe in something is the same as teaching them to believe in nothing.

no it isnt. i didnt teach my kids to not believe in dragons. its not a belief system

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15553) 7 months ago

Dragons don't provide life-long moral lessons, and how to be a good human to your fellow human.

Christianity does, and is the basis of Western Civilization whether you like it or not.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 7 months ago

Dragons don't provide life-long moral lessons and how to be a good human to your fellow human.

irrelevant to whether its a belief, which it isnt. i also thoroughly enjoy the pro slavery parts of the bible, how moralistic.

Christianity does, and is the basis of Western Civilization whether you like it or not.

again irrelevant to whether atheism or agnosticism is a belief system, which it isnt. just like me not believing in dragons, santa clause and fairies isnt a "belief system". i dont care about "sin" or other chrsitian tenants and mroality like salvation. no one in the west needed chrsitanity to tell us murder, rape and theft was wrong. no human social organization would have survived without it if we started murdering and raping our own tribe. humans are social animals and all social animals exhibit some morality. ours is just far more advanced. bees dont suddenly attack and kill their own hive. nor do wolves their own pack. how would they evolve to cooperate and work together if they just killed their own group non stop?

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/#:~:text=Atheism%20is%20one%20thing%3A%20A%20lack%20of%20belief%20in%20gods.&text=It%20is%20simply%20a%20rejection,lack%20of%20belief%20in%20gods.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

you were wrong but couldnt say so. so you went off on a tangent and changed the subject. maybe that Christian based western morality could have taught you humility and courage to admit when you were wrong? guess not

reply