Is Christianity any different?

[moses]

Over the years I have been exposed to a few Moonies, Bawanna Gum Dishes (or whatever his name is, you know, the guy with 50 Rolls Royce's) Railiens, Ralieniences, Realwierdians, ---- the spaceship guys! Banch Davidians, (a flash in the pan!) Scientologists, -

(Just in case anyone is wondering why your faithfull scribe is on a religious kick read on! I first got interested in religion when I was a young teenaged recruit for Scientology in 1967. I quickly caught on that it was a scam and then a few weeks later L. Ron Hubbard came to Toronto from his boat in the Caribbean. (Sea-Org) I overheard him talking to one of the other guys about some new "tenants" they were going to introduce to the "faithful." The guy said, "Ron we can't tell them that! It will never fly, these people aren't completely stupid you know!" To which Hubbard replied, "Let's just see how stupid they really are!" (By the way - Hubbard might be dead - but I'll bet he's still laughing • Edited by a Moderator •) Just so you know. Allan)

Followers of Jim Jones, the Kool-Aid guy, Hare Krishna's, Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, Pentecostal and Jehovas Witnesses.
Now this is a pretty divergent group of people and what (intellectually)they say about their particular religion is natuarally different in each case. BUT, how (emotionally)they express themselves is exactly the same, with the same type of arguments and self-righteous conviction in every case.
Makes you wonder!
Or as my dad used to say; "Put them all together in a sack and hang it from the ceiling, then whack the sack with a big stick, whoever you hit will be the right one!"

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Masked profanity is not allowed by the campus decorum.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Is your question "Is ChristianITY any different", or is it "are self-proclaimed ChristianS any different"? I suspect it's the latter. I ask because there is a significant difference.

[salvationfound]

Or as my dad used to say; "Put them all together in a sack and hang it from the ceiling, then whack the sack with a big stick, whoever you hit will be the right one!"

I could just bring the argument back to atheism. Is atheism any different?
Because they say all the other world views are wrong. How is that different
from any religious belief? Because it denies the supernatural?

Acceptance or disbelief in metaphysics is a faith element either way. But
skeptics think because they reject the metaphysics their worldview is
somehow superior. But a skeptic's worldview is based on faith in the same
way.

This thread doesn't show anything but that every world view thinks the
others are wrong. Which I don't argue with.

[Ray Fletcher]

I think they all bring the follower a peaceful sense of knowing that they have found the correct religion, and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

[salvationfound]

I think they all bring the follower a peaceful sense of knowing that they have found the correct religion, and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Atheism can also bring a sense of peace knowing they found the correct
world view and don't have to waste their time focusing on an afterlife and
can focus solely on their lives here.

[Minnesota]

I think they all bring the follower a peaceful sense of knowing that they have found the correct religion, and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Pretty much right. It doesn't matter what the mythology, just as along as it produces the desired result, and they all do. Religions succeed because they suit their worshipers (paraphrase of a quote by Dean Ing).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'd ask how they respond to the resurrection and the deity of Christ. What you do flows out of what you believe.

[moses]

Glad to see that I have agreement on most of the subject. Yes, we all think our way of belief is THE way, but one of the positive aspects of a beliif system is just as Minesota said, "they suit their adherents needs" (to paraphrase) and as an example my wife is suffering from Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and her faith is a great comfort to her. On the other hand I look at suicide bombers and other religious fanatics (or even these idiots that will swear on the bible that the world is only seven thousand years old) and can only shake my head in disbelief and (gasp) horror at their ignorance!
Your humble scribe
Allan

[LGM]

Pretty much right. It doesn't matter what the mythology, just as along as it produces the desired result, and they all do. Religions succeed because they suit their worshipers (paraphrase of a quote by Dean Ing).

Yes. Religion is a crutch...and reality is a broken leg.

[Skeptic]

I could just bring the argument back to atheism.

Positive Atheism perhaps, but not Negative (or Passive) Atheism.

Is atheism any different?

Yes -- no embrace or need for fallacies or presumption beyond the available data (i.e. what we know under sound epistemology).

Acceptance or disbelief in metaphysics is a faith element either way. But skeptics think because they reject the metaphysics their worldview is somehow superior. But a skeptic's worldview is based on faith in the same way.

Nope -- it's the rejection of faith (i.e. presumption). No pet theories or sacred cows allowed.

A Skeptical Manifesto by Michael Shermer

An unfortunate title (IMO), but a very good basic intro to skepticism.

Byron

[salvationfound]

Yes -- no embrace or need for fallacies or presumption beyond the available data (i.e. what we know under sound epistemology).

What does available data say on anything about metaphysics? You can't
use science towards metaphysics in any possible way. If anybody actually
used only science to ask about God the only honest conclusion anyone could
come up with is agnosticism. Atheism would be just as much a fallacy
because your using presumptions to conclude data that by itself has no real
conclusion.

Nope -- it's the rejection of faith (i.e. presumption). No pet theories or sacred cows allowed.

The rejection would be the faith. You can't have rejection without
concluding data. And since we have no concluding data on metaphysics any
attempt to reject it would be faith.

It all depends on your default position. On whether or not you reject or
accept the possibility of metaphysics. Now whether you do or don't is up
to you but don't start claiming that your world view is superior because you
take the default position that eliminates metaphysics. You would have to
prove that such a position should be the default position.

[Zarathustra]

I could just bring the argument back to atheism. Is atheism any different?
Because they say all the other world views are wrong. How is that different
from any religious belief? Because it denies the supernatural?

Acceptance or disbelief in metaphysics is a faith element either way. But
skeptics think because they reject the metaphysics their worldview is
somehow superior. But a skeptic's worldview is based on faith in the same
way.

This thread doesn't show anything but that every world view thinks the
others are wrong. Which I don't argue with.

I disagree, The whole point of the agnostic worldview is that there is no proof way,with repect to the truth of metaphysics. If you ask an agnostic whether there is metaphysics, (What ever you mean by metaphysics) they will say that they do not know, not that there is or that there is not. Only faith can make the assumption on one of those positions. Personally, I think your worldview is unjustified and unjustifiable, not wrong per say.

[Carpedm9587]

Positive Atheism perhaps, but not Negative (or Passive) Atheism.

Ok, I have to ask. What is the difference between positive atheism, negative atheism, and passive atheism? I think I know how I might define them, but I am curious how you are using them?

/Michel

[guacamole]

Positive Atheism perhaps, but not Negative (or Passive) Atheism.

Even negative atheism is going to be based on a set of of at least one unproveable assumptions; faith and dogma no matter how you slice it.

Yes -- no embrace or need for fallacies or presumption beyond the available data (i.e. what we know under sound epistemology).

What exactly is a sound epistemology?

Is there any system of thought which doesn't begin with a dogmatic statement and proceeds to construct knowledge based on those assumptions?

Why are are some atheists so hung up on being different? Does different automatically equate with "right"? You'd think that if we're going after Christians for the idea of being uniquely right in this thread, people would be aware of some of the pitfalls involved in proclaiming their own "rightness"...

fwiw
guaca.

[guacamole]

I disagree, The whole point of the agnostic worldview is that there is no proof way,with repect to the truth of metaphysics. If you ask an agnostic whether there is metaphysics, (What ever you mean by metaphysics) they will say that they do not know, not that there is or that there is not. Only faith can make the assumption on one of those positions. Personally, I think your worldview is unjustified and unjustifiable, not wrong per say.

I disagree, unsurprisingly. Even Agnosticism, if it is capable of making a statement along the lines of "metaphysics is unknowable" or "I cannot know..." is making those statements based on assumptions that must be taken on faith; the minute you introduce the concept of "proof" you have entered into the world of faith and assumption because inorder to construct a proof some of your terms, by the very definition of "proof", cannot be questioned. At some level, even agnoticism is circular.

fwiw,
guaca.