Fun Religious Argument!

Okay, I have a fun idea for a religious argument!

• If you are a Christian, assume that there is no higher power, and attempt to argue that your religion is still a good thing and more people should join it.
• If you are an atheist, assume that the Bible is literally true and attempt to argue that atheism is still a good thing and more people should become atheists.
• If you belong to a religion other than Christianity, assume either that there is no higher power or that the Bible is literally true, and attempt to argue that your religion is still a good thing and more people hsould join it.

Begin!

Christianity is a good thing for the world because it inspires people to commit good acts of charity and gives unstable people hope when in depressing situations. Contrary to popular belief, it is not violent, and in fact the violence supposedly perpetuated by it is actually perpetuated by the unstable lunatics that exist in every walk of society. In fact, Christianity reduces the number of such people within its ranks by preaching a positive message of love for one's fellow man.

On the second point- 'm an Atheist, and I don't think that's possible. Not the Bible being true, though it still isn't, but arguing to be an Atheist if I know it's true.

I'd still need more clarification on #2, because the Bible as I know it is contradictory in several places.

Also, even if you find some way to solve the contradictions, it still doesn't help trying to figure out how to interpret the bible. Something can be literally true in a lot of different ways.

Not to mention that even people who literally spent their whole lives studying religion still couldn't agree completely on what it meant.

edited 30th Jun '11 9:34:02 PM by storyyeller

As for the argument. If the Bible is literally true, then the god depicted in it is a horrible tyrant and monster. (Please, no offence to believers meant. This one does not claim truth, only her perception.) Said tyrant is going to fry people for even thinking badly of him. Actually, thinking seems to be more important for him than doing anything. So if one finds such creature abhorrent, no amount of obedience in actions and begging is going to buy one mercy, for there is no sincere love for god in one's heard. So, it would be better for people not to believe, as belief won't save them anyway (remember, merely believing in existence of god is not enough), but lack of belief would at least allow them to live their short and fleeting life without anticipation of unimaginable horror that awaits them.

If it was proven beyond any shadow of doubt that the Bible is ''literally'' true, this one would turn to drugs in order for forget about it.

I am an Atheist and I shall attempt to answer this as best as I can:

After our deaths, we perceive either a heaven or a hell, and we are taught to assume that with God in our lives, that those locations have value. However, while the bible attempts to define morality, his morality is, in reality, simply another set of laws. Morality cannot be defined, even by God.

The events of the Bible are historically correct, and God is real in the sense that matter and energy are real. Does the truth have value, though? It is simply that which is perceived by our sensory systems and recorded. God has no authority if we do not grant it to him. Our lives have no value and his attempt to force it upon with promise of eternal joy and threat of eternal damnation is an act of futility. God is infinite, but infinity is not always equal. Our ability to think of these other realities means that the overall multiverse is "bigger than God." This universe is but one sovereignty in a vast sea of nations.

The nation in which we live, that is, our universe, is ruled by a tyrant God. A tyrant God whose power is claimed to be infinite, but, as He cannot assign true value or withdraw the ability to imagine alternative realities from humankind, his infinite power is infinite in a one dimensional sense. To better illustrate this, imagine our universe as a line on a graph. We are told that lines on a graph extend infinitely in one direction. Now imagine two lines. They both fit in a single plane. God is, in this case, a single infinite line, but there are far more dimensions, each exponentially more infinite than the last.

God, even in His infinite power, is inconsequential on an even grander scheme. His threat of torture or promise of reward is petty and should be resisted by humans. Hell is an eternal fire that burns without ever consuming fuel and without ever emitting light, yet, it is preferable to burn in darkness than to submit to the rule of This Dictator by believing in His existence. His existence, and his reward/punishment system are meaningless, and our perception of those rewards and punishments are meaningless. Forgo the entire ordeal by not believing in it. Our meaningless existences will take us from place to place but will never grant us additional meaning, even in God. Resisting a belief in God will lead to an earlier Judgement Day, thus advancing mankind out of the meaningless first stage of things.

(Yeah, I rambled a bit there. I may edit this later to include additional arguments and to clean up my arguments already listed.)

But isn't that the perspective from which the typical atheist argues from already?

It's not too far off, to be honest. It's not a core part of atheism, to be sure, but yes, most atheists do look at the moral tropes behind the major religions and find most of them morally lacking, including myself.

Best case scenario behind theistic Christianity in my mind? There's a deity out there trying its best to prevent us from destroying ourselves, but in some very ham-handed and ultimately self-defeating way. Worst case? I'll spoilerize it so if you don't want to be offended don't read it. You know that whole war in heaven thing? Yeah. The good guys LOST. Victors write the history, after all.

Edit:There's another question here. Does theism require worship? If not, then as long as you believe in the existence of said god, then you're no longer an atheist. Full stop. Maybe it's about you having special knowledge. Personally, I wouldn't share said knowledge because I think that more than likely said deity is a jerk, so it's something, albeit small, that I could do to oppose it.

edited 30th Jun '11 10:29:56 PM by Karmakin

^^ no, the typical atheist argument is that there is not sufficient evidence for a God.

It's when we start assuming the truth of the bible that atheists use the "god is a tyrant" argument.

edited 30th Jun '11 10:28:42 PM by nightwyrm_zero

Ok...So...Not Christian. Buddhist. Don't feel like doing "THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE" at the moment but I will eventually. So instead I will just go on assuming that all of the metaphysics and cosmology of Buddhism are bullshit.

Kamma? Bullshit.

Cycle of rebirth in Samsara? Bullshit.

Gods? Bullshit.

Ghosts (that die, ghosts count as lives)? Bullshit.

Purgatory (this also counts as a life)? Bullshit.

Paradise (that is temporary, it is a life)? Bullshit.

The soul thing is bullshit too. As is the idealistic "Everything exists solely because of your mind and everything is a matter of the mind. So the world both exists and doesn't exist all the time,". Idealism is bullshit and materialism is in baby. As is annihilation following death.

So...why still be Buddhist? Because we are Applied Psychology: The Religion more or less. In particular Buddhism seems to really dig the ideas behind things like cognitive therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Buddhism's main purpose is to make you happy, sane beings that aren't going "RAPE, PILLAGE, BURN, AND KILL OURSELVES!!!!!" every five seconds. Which results in other beings being sane and happy in theory. Practice? Well...it's fuzzy there.

If we toss out all the hoobly goobly and go with "Well you only have one shot because once this is done the shit is done for good and there's just BLACK VOID" then really being a bhikkhu doesn't seem to make too much sense I suppose. You could argue that being a particularly devout member of The Sangha still has its purposes though. Namely if you are a bhikkhu you are living in an environment that is designed to be the best suited environment for killing attachment, desire, and ignorance of the truth of things (namely that you're going to fucking die and that everything changes and eventually ends). This theoretically means that your life won't suck as bad as say...someone who likes that world and this whole having a mind thing. You don't feel for it and identify with it and your goal is to not feel for it or identify with it. Of course you aren't supposed to feel any sort of happy feelings either, but eh at least you aren't suffering.

And that's the purpose. To reduce suffering as much as possible.

The moral rules of Buddhism are simple enough and can be summed up as "Don't be an asshole or do things that will increase your likelihood of becoming an asshole temporarily". To reduce suffering.

They are...Avoid stealing, avoid lying and gossip, avoid killing and physically harming beings (this includes yourself), avoid booze or at least avoid becoming heavily drunk (though if you're an angry drunk I would say avoiding booze completely is best in regards to being a Buddhist), and avoid sexual misconduct (this varies but the near universally agreed upon things are no cheating and no rape).

These are however situational. Avoid killing doesn't mean "Never kill animals and don't eat meat" necessarily and it damn sure don't mean "Let the bad man kill me because killing or harming him is my only way out of the situation". It also doesn't translate to "Force rape victims to give birth to the child of the rapist".

They're more like guidelines of things that generally result in problems but can in certain circumstances result in fewer ones than sticking with the damn things strictly to the letter at all times.

Some key things about Buddhist philosophy that hold up still unless we have decided that all this is bull too in which case...I have become immortal and have never once changed ever in my life. Ever. In any form. Physically, emotionally, or mentally. I am a static being in every single way. As are you. Also nothing has ever died and there's no such thing as pain or eating.

Things are impermanent and not static. They are subject to change and also subject to ending. The universe itself will probably die too (though since we tossed out the cosmology that may mean we tossed out the concept of the universe ending as well since that is a thing in said cosmology, we have certainly thrown out "A new universe is born using the recycled bits left over from the old one" though I guess) Conflict exists in the world. Things need to eat. Things die. Back pains exist. Conflict helps keep the world spinning. Because the world by our definition "sucks".

So yes. Be Buddhist. We provide free psychological therapy similar to CBT in concept (changing erroneous thought patterns and dysfunctional emotions along with behavior). Complete with your very own therapists who are trained in their art! OH HAY BHIKKHU. Also we have lots of free food at religious services. Lots and lots. And who doesn't like free food? Bad people. That's who.

Now that that is done...Someone asked something about theism requiring worship. No it doesn't. I personally believe that most gods either a) don't care about us much if at all or b) are huge assholes. The few who genuinely care and do nice things are likely to be few and far between. And they also die. And aren't capable of breaking the rules of reality. Most of my fellows at the wat don't worship gods at all. I worship Guanyin very loosely. I am certainly not a devotee to her.

I'd have to give up meat. D:

edited 30th Jun '11 11:05:41 PM by Aondeug

I don't think that I can do the first. As a Christian, I literally worship Truth; and if Truth had a form that is not the one I expect (as is very extremely likely to be the case under a variety of aspects) then this would not free me (or any other human being) from the duty to seek it.

If there is no higher power, then Christianity is a lie; and "you shall not lie" is a precept of Christianity itself, and, even more importantly, is a precept implied directly by the global ethic which is, I think, the foundation of all humanisms, religious or areligious may they be.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:16:08 PM by Carciofus

edited 1st Jul '11 9:29:01 AM by Beholderess

Pretty much what Beholdress said, and I've made that argument before.

The god of the bible is, to my understanding, the biggest asshole that's ever existed. Killing entire cities because people had buttesx? Demanding worship on pain of eternal torture? Killing a bunch of women and children who had no control over their society because the men kept slaves that were God's special friends? Demanding stoning as the penalty for infidelity, but only for the women? Creating a shitty, painful universe and allowing awful things to happen despite "omnipotence" meaning "any power" which also includes "the power to fix things without any negative consequences"? Torturing multiple *

If there was a God, I still wouldn't worship him. Bowing down to the immoral merely because they are powerful is a cowardly act, and the source of many a human problem.

edited 1st Jul '11 10:01:43 AM by deathjavu

If you really checked out Canaanite culture it was not a pretty picture and that would be an understatement.Heck,I have a feeling that the women could be just as bad as the men.Also the Canaanites were also child sacrificers who would without thought throw their children into the fire to appease their gods.Also here's the thing about God,he never lets children into hell because they are too young to convert on their own.God did order children killed but the thing is he was saving them from a culture where they would be doomed to follow their adult counterparts.Plus in a society with child sacrificing their would bound to be less children then one expects.

Also bub if you read the Bible further both partners in the crime of adultery were sentenced to be stoned.Also God wanted marriage to be based on monogamy and it required faithfulness from both husband and wife.There are many kings and patriachs who did polgamy but God never condones it because it wasn't apart of his plan.Actually if you read about the stories of men who practiced polgamy it describes the heartarche,complex,and downsides of having more than one spouse.God calls for all sides to be faithful to their spouses and not just their wives.

Well, if it was proved that Jesus either never lived or didn't raise from the dead, then my faith would be worthless. The Apostle Paul even mentions this in one of his writings.

I suppose I'd just live by the Golden Rule or something along those lines. Taking the God out of the Bible still leaves you with a lot of 'good points to live a nice friendly life by', although the ontological shock would take some time to get over.

Because religious arguments are fun, m'kay?

From a Christian perspective, if I didn't think there was a God, I don't think I'd be wasting my time with religion. The nearest I know of to an argument for Christianity without a God is the "non-realism" put forward by a theologian called Don Cupitt, whose basic argument is that "God" is just a particularly powerful symbol for the moral and spiritual values we ought to be aiming at, rather than a person. This strikes me as a cop-out and I can't see why, in the absence of God, we ought to be aiming at Christian values anyway.

Oh yes. That is another thing in our favor possibly. Marriage isn't a part of our religious doctrine and is not considered sacrament. MEANING HELLO CIVIL MARRIAGES WITH GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED TOO.

We also have no official stance on polygamy and polyamory (again sexual misconduct is never defined and the exact definition is a secular matter) so hey you can possibly be all right in our book too so long as your society says "OK".

For those of you who like SCIENCE and PROOF and hate people taking things just because they like the sound of it, tradition says so, because your teacher said, because it was written in a holy book, and so on...Kalama Sutta. It approves of you. We still require faith in Nibbana (one tests the idea of The Path by following, there's no other way according to us to do this beyond following it) so we still have that but hey...we are like "WHOO YEAH QUESTION US" in a religious text so where can you go wrong? WHERE I ASK.

-stares at Buddhist empires and various wrongs committed because "KAMMA SAID SO"-

...

Well. Yeah. But every ideology has that so THERE.

To be fair on the whole Hell thing – it's not a Jewish belief, so it wasn't part of the Old Testament framework of a more legalistic God (He'd straight waste a bitch, but he wouldn't torture his victims afterwards), and Gehenna is something more like Purgatory, which everyone eventually passes out of an into Heaven, and it's not even a Christian belief, really, judging by scripture alone.

There are only three mentions of a hell-like place in the Bible – Luke 16:19-31, which is explicitly a parable about a rich man going to Hades for being uncharitable; Matthew 25:41-46, in which Jesus says that it is the hell is the place where the uncharitable will go; and Revelation 20:11-15 where the Lake of Fire is the eternal prison of Death, Hades, and the Devil and his angels.

That's two metaphors and an abstract passage from the trippiest and most inscrutable book in the Bible. So yeah, Hell isn't real.

edited 1st Jul '11 11:29:51 AM by MatthewTheRaven

All that Gods nonsense ain't actually true, but you've gotta love a religion whose main ritual is drinking booze from beer-horns.

Also, the whole courage, honor, loyalty, self-reliance and generosity Heathen ethics are a solid basis for being a good chap. No weird sexual hang-ups either, and you're allowed to seek pleasurable experiences in life without it being seen as sinful.

That, in short, is why it might be a good idea for y'all to be Heathen, even if Heathenry ain't exactly true.

Also, beer horns.

Like Abraham didn't try to sacrifice his son?

He was stopped, and human sacrifice was forbidden.

Remember, Abraham was a Canaanite - and the later Hebrews were in fact Canaanites - so he was just following the practices of Canaanite religion. The fact that his new god stopped him proved that He was better than the other gods.

@Matthew: Not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

It really depends on what you mean by "hell".

edited 1st Jul '11 1:36:08 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

I know what Sheol is, but it's not really close to Christian hell at all, so I didn't bring it all. It's basically "the grave."

Depends on the sect of Judaism. Some of them use it as "the grave" and some of them use it as a concept more like the Greek Hades, where there's various levels of it depending on what you did in life.