In Opposition to Conservative Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

I make this statement/argument/whatever because I want to get my point clear on the issue. In some sense, I've come to see conservative Christianity as childish, stupid, harmful, deceptive, and destructive, and to this end, I believe that the sooner that this becomes shown clear, both with some patience, but also with strident opposition, the better off the world will be. This is also a bit of a rant too, and I think I am tired.

1) Conservative Christianity is almost certainly false.

a) The claims that conservative Christianity often makes about science require the rejection of mainstream cosmology, geology, biology, archaeology and so on and so forth to the point where in as much as one trusts the scientific process, the same process that has provided the successes of the modern world, one cannot trust conservative Christianity. Could it really be that all of those scientists are just self-deceived or lying to themselves or just foolish? Maybe, but when the great minds of the world come to an overwhelming consensus, when even the legal system reluctantly bends its ear to such expertise against even perversions much milder than the whole-hog creationism desired (see Kitzmiller v Dover), we have to recognize that either the world is crazy, or the creationists are. I won't even pretend to be a polymath enough to cover all ground in cosmology, geology, biology, archaeology and all of that to perfectly prove this point, as no individual has enough intellectual firepower to the sheer complexity of our scientific world, but I know that the people who are, do come to this conclusion. http://biologos.org/blog/would-you-like ... at-theory/ Even further, I know that most of the major creationist claims are addressed sufficiently. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

b) The Bible is assuredly erroneous. (I know, a lot of people will say that I am misreading, quoting out of context, or whatever other ploy they prefer)

This includes internal contradictions, such as between Genesis 6:19-20 and 7:2-3

Gen 6:19-20 "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. (20) Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive."

Gen 7:2-3 "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, (3) and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

Or this difference on the genealogy of Joseph:

Matthew 1:16
"and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23
"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli"

Or how about this inconsistency on the death of Judas:

Matthew 27:3-5
"When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. "

Acts 1:18
"Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."

I'm feeling particularly lazy, but frankly, if one wants to see more contradictions, here are some sources.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/internal.html
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/numerical.html

Even further, it seems to contradict history:

Such as with Exodus:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/ ... impossible

There isn't evidence, the history doesn't make sense, and frankly, conservative Christianity is dead if Exodus never happened.

Or once again, the issue of the Roman census in Luke also wouldn't have happened and it doesn't make sense.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/ ... .html#luke

Or heck, Herod's slaughter of infants is an instance that also makes no sense and that was not recorded by other sources, making this claim rather suspect. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/herod.html

Heck, even the fact that Mary was a virgin in the Gospels is rather convenient given that this was not actually what was prophecied in Isaiah. The term in Isaiah 7:14 that is interpreted as "virgin" is interpreted everywhere else in the text as "young woman", and the JPS translation actually says
"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The fact that the Gospels fulfilled a prophecy that was a translation error in the Septuagint brings up a lot of questions, particularly on the accuracy of the tale told. There is little reason why God would be beholden to a false prophecy and a lot of reason why early Christians would feel beholden to believe that the Messiah must be genuine, even to false standards, which itself undermines the credibility of the scriptures.

As it stands, scholars are willing to openly admit that the Bible contains things that in any other text would be considered erroneous. (I believe this was explicitly claimed by William H Barnes in The Oxford Guide to the Bible under the article about inspiration)

c) An all-powerful and morally perfect being is incompatible with what we see in the universe.

In our world, we see people commit suicide. Children killed. Women raped. Natural disasters killing many many people. And yet Christianity claims that there is this being that is all powerful and morally perfect.

Now, think about a highly moral person. Wouldn't you imagine that this kind of person would be the sort of person who would try to alleviate and reduce people's sufferings? Now, if our morally perfect person works by such principles, then wouldn't it make intuitive sense that God would be just as active? And if God is all-powerful, then how could such tremendous evil be tolerated by such a being? I mean, I don't think I could stomach to watch a woman get raped, or a child beaten to death, even a person commit suicide, but God watches this every day, but where is the action taken?

Even further, if God is morally perfect, wouldn't God create a world that is perfect as well, or at least obviously very very good, but it seems to me that it is simple to believe that this universe could be in some sense better.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... od-do.html

God could have created perpetual miracles that acted to buffer us against Earthquakes, ones to undermine hurricanes or tornadoes. God could have given man an ability to fly without the use of aircraft. Omnipotence means a lack of limits, but God doesn't press the limit despite the capability and for no real apparent reason.

d) God as expressed in scripture is incompatible with moral perfection.

Don't believe me? Just look at Deuteronomy 28:16-68, and some of the things said within the scripture:

Deu 28:53-55 And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the LORD your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you. (54) The man who is the most tender and refined among you will begrudge food to his brother, to the wife he embraces, and to the last of the children whom he has left, (55) so that he will not give to any of them any of the flesh of his children whom he is eating, because he has nothing else left, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in all your towns.

Deu 28:33-34 A nation that you have not known shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors, and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually, (34) so that you are driven mad by the sights that your eyes see.

I mean, such statements are not compatible with what most people consider moral, even to inflict upon a Hitler. Modern execution is so much kinder in its methods and assumptions, and certainly does not involve harming offspring, while God desires to force anyone who goes against him to EAT their offspring.

If this isn't enough, just look at the story of the flood. We have a perfect God who creates a universe, He waits until it gets bad to a point He could foresee, and then decides that the only rational solution to the problems of it is to kill EVERYONE. Now that is not just a genocide, that's almost an omnicide. Now, think about this for a second, either these people must have gotten worse than we've ever seen, after than could be stopped, and somehow floods are better than quicker and more humane methods. Especially since there is no point in killing off all of the children.

This isn't even the only case where God demands the death of everyone. Rather, we see the same kind of approach in handling Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, and once again, it becomes very difficult to take this seriously. Our own demons, the Nazis, ended up being reasonable people warped by an unreasonable political and social culture, but who could be in some sense corrected without killing them all. But, these people were so horrifying that they must be utterly destroyed? Once again, we see an approach that clashes with our basic morality, and with a justification that seems incompatible with our understanding of people, because once again, the children didn't have to be killed.

And well, to add more, God hardened the heart of the pharaoh, pushing him to do evil. Exo 9:12 "But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses." And did this for the purpose of punishing him so tremendously that God is glorified. In fact, this is God's purpose for Pharaoh. Exo 9:16 "But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.", which is also expressed by Paul Rom 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."" But the problem is that ruining people's character for the purposes of destroying them is evil.

To go even further, some Biblical scholars believe that God requested that man give him human sacrifices, which is immoral and likely an internal consistency snarl again. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm#child This is seen in these verses: Ezekiel 20:25-26 "Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD." and also this scripture Exo 22:29-30 "You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. (30) You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me." (which as I have argued in the past is not close by any modifying scripture, as some try to argue with the idea of redeeming)

In order to even save us as well, God demanded blood. This is the basis of substitutionary atonement theories. Think about this for a second though. If you want to forgive somebody, you don't shed your own blood to do this correct? Why then is it rational or even moral for God to demand his own blood in order to forgive us our sins? It makes no sense. Even worse, it makes no sense to argue that God can transfer punishment onto the guiltless. Can an innocent take the death penalty for another person? Can a mob boss decide to have a lackey go to prison in his place? No, obviously not, but rather such ideas offend our sense of justice. The issues can be seen in a number of writings by Dr. Ken Pulliam: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2009/10 ... ry-of.html , http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... ocent.html .

And even again, God created a universe in which there is eternal suffering. I mean, is it logically possible for God to have created realities in which all men were saved? Yes. Is it logically possible for God to destroy a human soul that would otherwise suffer eternally? Yes, and it would be kind in such a case. But, conservative Christians deny both possibilities, saying that God will accept an eternal torment, possibly even condemn people to this eternal torment. This is nearly humanly unthinkable, and seems psychotic, but this God is labeled as morally perfect.

I mean, perhaps the defense is that moral perfection is some quality unlike our understanding of moral perfection. God's morals are higher than our morals and incomprehensible to us. The problem is that this makes no sense of relatively trivial things like "God is love" (1 John 4:8; 16), because if "love" refers to something which we would understand as love, as it seems it must given the overall context seen in 1 Cor 13, and even just in 1 John 4, then such actions seem clearly incompatible.

Even ignoring this issue we have both our strong intuitions that morality exists necessarily, and cannot include things like rape. But we also have to recognize that to accept a morality that can do this is to turn God into a Lovecraftian monster. The problem with alien moralities is that they are not binding on anybody, a problem pointed out by CS Lewis in "A Grief Observed":

Even further saying that God's actions are just beyond our understanding but still conventionally moral leaves us again, with a very difficult problem. If the right thing is so hard to identify that it often looks like the wrong thing, then how can we trust ourselves to make moral actions? This problem is pointed out by philosopher Scott Sehon: http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/ssehon ... theism.pdf Because if moral actions are so hard to identify, but God is still the being we seek to emulate, (implicit in Matt 5:48 ), then how can this even rationally work?

e) Christianity is absurd.

God's foreknowledge is a major moral problem, as shown by this comic:


If God foreknows everything, then in what sense can man really be in control of his own actions. God's foreknowledge is itself a possible tool for control, a point made by Dean Zimmerman in his criticism of Molinism. http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimme ... Jan-25.pdf And if God can control the future through the manipulation of variables and thus control every choice, how can we really be responsible for something that we were manipulated into like a puppet? It seems that we really cannot be, but rather that God is responsible for twisting us into who we are through his actions.

Even further, why go through this period of a "chosen people" and even why just disregard them and all of the old rules later.



It seems silly, when God, being all powerful, could have easily sought all people at the same time, instead of picking favorites.

Even further, the rules God gives are silly. I mean, we are saying that the same being who creates the "intricate complexities of the universe" has some problem with homosexuals.



And wants the pleasing aroma of goat fat sacrifices until y'know, he scraps that system later.

I mean, once again does this really make sense?

Why is there so much disagreement in Christianity if the meanings are supposedly plain, and the Holy Spirit guides people? Does it make sense that a perfect God would allow for so many unintelligent designs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintellig ... n#Examples Does it make sense that a perfect God would be so hidden? Does it make sense that religions are matters of truth, if upbringing is so central to one's beliefs? It seems very clear that religions, while making truth claims, having nothing to do with truth itself because of how much it is just rooted in who raised you. This point is brought up by Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYigmGyN2RQ Science doesn't work this way, but religion very much does, so how does this make sense with a God who will punish us for making the wrong choice when most of these decisions have nothing to do with truth??? My answer is that it doesn't. Instead, we have a nonsensical belief in a God who is this metaphysical black hole, sucking all value into itself: http://itself.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/ ... lack-hole/ An aesthetic abomination.

2) Conservative Religion is actually harmful to the believer and to society.

a) First of all, I want to make it clear that religion harms the believer. It warps the mind as Robert Price points out: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... licism.htm by stunting them with an absurd skepticism and a black and white narrowness, leaving them without a real possibility of engaging the world. It pushes them into intellectual dishonesty to defend their dogmas, which are often taken as truth itself. http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... inded.html Even further, the very nature of the doctrine is a mind poison. In some sense, it is what we could consider an intellectual black hole: http://www.philosophyetc.net/2009/01/in ... holes.html as once a person enters they cannot leave in good fait, the religion itself does not really carry the possibility of falsification, but rather claims that any failure to perceive it is just suppression given the obviousness, as seen in Romans 1, and it urges people to have faith telling them that their blindness is a virtue, (Hebrews 11) and so the dogma beats itself into the identity and the fears of the believer, leaving them without the ability to consider the falsehood of the belief.

The problem is that this is egregious harm to the person and a perversion of their capabilities. Often wedding them to a closed-minded worldview of blacks and whites and authority, as psychologist Bob Altameyer points out about conservative religion in his book "The Authoritarians". http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ And certainly bringing them to a very deep sort of nihilism, one that ties everything up with this Lovecraftian God, and makes all life, beauty and wonder contingent upon him until as conservative pastor Mark Driscoll says: "If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there’s no reason for us to be here. If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there are parties to be had, there are women to be had, there are guns to shoot, there are people to shoot." http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/ ... leads.html

b) Even further, conservative religion aims to attack the fundamental intellectual processes in society. This is continually seen with the injection of false controversies, such as with creation science, the intelligent design movement and other ideas that are being pushed forward onto children despite a lack of proven scientific merit.

Even further this disregard for the processes by which we could know reality isn't even new, but rather has existed in Christianity since the beginning as Christians destroyed texts to write worthless praises: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010 ... oners.html And continued ever since then with various absurd objections: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... ience.html

The reason for this war is simple. Conservative Christianity is false, but it cannot accept that fact, as the scripture is truth itself, something to never be doubted by its members. As such, anything that shows the possibility of conflict has to be squelched brought under control, regardless of how intellectually honest this attempt is. The goal is to defend the truth, to save the world, nothing could be nobler, and this is how debased this belief is.

c) Worse, conservative religion is not driven by a concern for earthly good and would sacrifice it for their various crazy causes. This could be seen by the Republican manipulation of the conservative Right, as they disregarded any major issue for the opportunity to oppose gay marriage. A religion that sees itself as truth, morality, and so on also can be damaging to the liberality that our society needs.

To conservative Christians, quashing the freedom of homosexuals is just a way to protect their perverse norms. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/may/11.52.html To some on the fringes, the very notion of a secular society is an impossiblity, as seen with major Calvinist theologian Greg Bahnsen's views on the matter: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe179.htm In this kind of belief, we see a desire to harm and persecute people over mistreatment of crackers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... racker.php We see a willingness to oppose life-saving efforts to protect from AIDS because these efforts involve condoms. (a major issue in this debate on the morality of the Catholic church: http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2- ... lic-church ) In fact, as I am sure that many people know, the view of many conservative Christians is in some sense meaningfully the opposite to love, as their positions are not driven by love, so much as the commands of a barbaric bronze-age text.

3) We have to oppose these people.

a) Conservative Christians are a threat to the community dialog of our society as they bring up meaningless issues, attack scientific orthodoxy, and seek to persecute based upon the immoralities of their own text. In order to protect our dialog, we have to make sure that it is known that this kind of approach to reality is wrong and false. If we don't do this, then how can we really keep the homosexual from being persecuted and alienated? How can we make sure that children are taught the best information that we can? How can we make sure that our political dialog is focused on real issues, such as the budget, such as military efforts, such as the workings of the economy, and other important issues? To make a clear stand is just simply a way of defending what is right in the world from what is wrong.

b) These people through their brainwashing are harming themselves and their children. They are stunting their potential as human beings. They are wasting their intellectual efforts on fake problems. They are undermining their own consciences and suppressing them to fail to see the evils of their own beliefs. To oppose them is in some sense for their own good, perhaps it is important to use varying tactics, but still the same principle applies.

c) Despite all of that, it is still important to understand the psychology underlying belief. Psychologist Valerie Tarico has written a series on the cognitive psychology of Christianity:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... ns-of.html
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... of_28.html
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... ns-of.html
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... of_16.html
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... of_27.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-t ... 43163.html

Only by understanding what is opposed can it be effectively defeated.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 30 May 2010, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nice try. You may be able to teach old dogs new tricks but I sincerely doubt you'll make any headway with Christians.

Eh, someone's gotta do something.

Shall I be the first to say it?

"Awesomelyglorious is going to Hell...Nah nah nah nah NAH nah!"

LETTER FROM THE WARMER REGIONS

This guy in the other pit.
He's got a better demon than me.
His can taunt with a sharper wit.
Mine's mind is weak, I must admit.

Frank, over there, gets the common stuff.
Acid drip, disemboweling, a bit of frying.
You'd think these things were too rough,
But demons do their best by trying.

Sometimes my guy makes things fall off.
An ear, my nose, a nipple or a toe.
I've lost one lung - which makes me cough.
And other things. That's how things go.

But this process is a losing game.
(Pardon the pun) I've had to grow them back.
My demon's required to make me blind or lame.
His torturing suffered for the lack.

The first millennium can be a trial.
But you can accommodate to anything.
The red hot knives, freezing cold, drowning
Can, at first, evoke screams, make you sing.
But, after a century or so, brings only frowning.

My demon and I, between torture sessions,
Now entertain ourselves by playing chess.
Neither he nor I retain any aggressions
And he dislikes cleaning up the mess.

well, you cant reason with those who have abandoned it.

it always tickles me that christians dont believe in santa yet they believe in god.

What you have remember is: the over-riding concerns of Christians are:

1. To have a "personal relationship with Jesus"; and

2. To be "saved" (i.e., to gain entry into Heaven).

Any "logic" that might interfere with these notions, or that might cause them to "lose their faith", is unwelcome, and will be perceived as full of holes.

Also, as temptation from Satan.

I also have issues with religious conservatives, mainly because of their fervent desire to force society to conform to their standards, and in doing so trampling over people's individual liberties.

What?

Oh come on, you can't deny efforts exist to effectively do this.

well, I would say that that's because religion is actually wishful thinking, therefore it has been a very powerful force, and it is very hard, almost impossible in most cases to fight that I believe. We have just seen a clear case of people rejecting evidence in favor of beliefs that makes you feel better.

True.

Even if formulated in this manner, it would be equally true to say that liberals also try to enforce their morality upon others, and in places like Canada actually have Pastors arrested for hate speech if they read certain passages of Leviticus or Romans.

I'm not saying I am a fan of them either. However, part of the conflict is the belief that conservative Christians are also wrong. It is not as bad to be right and enforce morality as it is to be wrong and enforce morality.

How about we just gas them all?

we wouldnt be much better than them then.

although it would be a one time thing while if we let them continue spouting jibberish the religious crap will continue for a while longer.

worth it in a sense but not very moral.