"You do not use your mind to think about your religion!"
– The Reverend Dr. Dr. Mr. M.D. David N. Meyer III, Pope of All New York City and the Great Pacific Northwest
All right-who looked in the mirror and said his name three times?
Well, for me, anyway, I can think of the trillions of tax free dollars that has been exempted over the centuries, for so-called “useful public service” and this burden put on the backs of other taxpayers. I don’t understand the usefulness. And just imagine if that tax-free money had went into something useful like education, healthcare, science, etc, it would have benefited us all.
By far the most damage has been the dumbing of America. Polls indicate this time and time again. 60% in America believe in a literal Noah and flood. Who do you think is responsible for this? I can think of the damage it is doing to our education in schools, fighting science, especially evolution, and continually spouting how it is actually a religion, and creationism is a science. Any publisher of science books, particularly in TX and CA, have to jump through hoops to get their science text books published, and often will have to put disclaimers in it, that “evolution is only a theory” or some other tommyrot statement to that effect. Many fundamentalists which are also creationists are on school boards deciding what textbooks will be put in their schools.
I can think of quite a few others, but these two stand out for me.
How do they feel about Paul, who many give credit to a good portion to the NT, and without him, some think there would have been no Christianity.
I believe his contempt for unbelievers were right there with Reason and Jews.
Does it? Are they distinctly they far apart? Seems like under “rationale” in dictionary entries, they nearly all include reason with it.
For the purpose of this discussion he didn’t need to, did he?
But those dollars were voluntarily donated! Can you tell me, exactly how you would have gotten them voluntarily donated to “useful public service[es]” such as “education, healthcare, science, etc”, especially since they were “voluntarily donated” to things that (frequently) meet those qualifications, even when public tax money wasn’t being put to those things, on “the backs of other taxpayers”? <pitworthy epithet>. You can’t reasonably bitch about money that wasn’t spent on a “worthy” target, unless it’s your own damn money. Shall we now demand tithes from the people, to support your worthy causes? Guess what, <pitworthy epithet>, we already do. Guess what the minimum income tax rate is. I’ll give you a hint. It starts at 10%, or “a tithe”. That’s the meaning of the fucking word, you <pitworthy epithet>! The same rate that the bible already demands that people pay to “the Church”, you <pitworthy epithet>! Except that there are no deductions, exclusions, ad nauseum. You really are a <pitworthy epithet>.
As exemplified by your post.
Cite? Best I can come up with shows ~40%, and a very soft 40, at that.
<pitworthy epithet> like you, perhaps?
Unfortunately, <pitworthy epithet>'s like you believe your own propaganda, even though it’s demonstrably untrue. So,… CITE? For all of the “tommyrot” you claim.
<pitworthy epithet>.
The intellectual distance between what we know and have proven, (or can prove) and what we hope to know, or strive to understand, can only be bridged with subjectivity.
Call that a theory, a conjecture, or an informed inference. Whatever it is, it’s subjective.
As time progresses our understanding of our world increases, and as our objective knowledge increases, that bridge is shorter. I have no doubt that the average atheist is sure that one day—even if it’s 500 years from now—science will reveal the delusion of religion. (in the meantime they’ll witness to us through books) Theists, I’m sure, are convinced that God—in whatever form—will show up and reveal the presumptuousness of atheism. (and in the meantime will preach to us)
Christianity------and all religion-----is an attempt to answer the most fundamental of questions: How did we get here? The debate of Evolution is not germane to finding that answer apparently, because evolution only discusses the method as to how we got here.
I think “it’s well established” that many (most?) Christians accept that evolution and Christianity are compatible; and that [their] God likely used evolution to get us here. So evolution is downstream of that question; so abiogenesis and other theories seeks to answer it. However that bridge-----the bridge of subjectivity between what we know, and what we would like to know about how we got here------is very long indeed.
Which gets to the misuse of the word “rational.”
Now since there is so very little objective scientific **proof ** as how we got here (like, none) is it reasonable that a person could infer that an intelligent being could have been the source of the events that culminated with human life? Could an intelligent person use reason to conclude that there is a God? In other words, must it be the case that a belief in God be without reason as it’s foundation?
Of course, their belief may be the result of reasoning. Their rational conclusions *may be much less than compelling * but that doesn’t make them irrational or without reason. It’s about time that someone will sputter out a post that conflates “compelling” with “rational”, and “evidence” with “proof.” That misuse is always a result of the strongest of faiths; a moral certainty that makes the line between subjectivity and objectivity blur (no matter how long) to the point they are indistinguishable.
By way of example, the most devout theist finds atheism irrational and silly. They are so fully convinced of “the assured expectation of things yet not beheld” that there is no room in their mind for subjectivity. It’s all certain. It’s all objectively true.
They too conflate “evidence” and “proof”, and cannot see how a person could use reason to come to atheism; reason being the foundation of rationality.
While Christianity has picked up some silly traditions, it is, at it’s core, an attempt to understand how we got here. It may be much less than compelling, but that doesn’t make it irrational.
Unless you’re devout. 
Which one?
I know I’m going to regret asking that . . .
Well, yes. The thread is about the rationality of being a Christian, not the rationality of being a theist.
And Catholicism isn’t Christianity? 
The damage done to science and education has been mentioned; not just directly like trying to suppress evolution, but indirectly by promoting the habits of thought that help religion and discouraging those that enable science & rationality. The promotion of the idea that faith is a valid reason to believe something, which causes enormous problems; much of our political discourse is driven by the fact that so much of the population believes that faith trumps facts or reason, and that just because they want to believe something it must be true. Then there’s the general attitude of anti-intellectualism and disdain for science & reason Christianity (and religion in general) works so hard to encourage.
There’s the constant promotion of hatred and oppression against women and homosexuals. The passage and attempted passage of oppressive & sadistic laws, the slanders, the abuse, the outright assaults and murders. The war on birth control, on abortion, on pre-natal care; all targeted at brutalizing women as much as possible. There’s all the families poisoned by Christian hatred who turn upon themselves because a child is gay or atheist, or because a woman doesn’t like being the slave of her husband.
There’s the constant attempts by Christians to suppress any form of happiness but sadism. Sex, video games, food, you name it; the only allowable pleasure in the eyes of Christians has always been the persecution and slaughter of unbelievers. Christianity has always been a cult of guilt and malice and the hatred of both oneself and others.
There’s the refusal to deal with problems of the future due to Christianity’s common focus on apocalypticism; there’s no need to worry about the future if there isn’t one. Along with the effects of some Christians to encourage an apocalypse.
There’s the “Protestant work ethic” and “prosperity theology” and all the other Christian derived beliefs that always boil down to* “if you’re poor it’s because you deserve it and God hates you, while if you are rich you are God’s chosen and should be venerated”.*
There’s the general amorality and lack of compassion produced by the Christian belief in souls and an afterlife and a God whose commands and desires outweigh anything in the real world.
There’s the contempt for the lives of unbelievers, the holy war attitude towards Communism and Islam that considers anything justified in fighting against such ultimate evils, and considers those who deserve such beliefs automatically deserving of death and worse than death.
Those are just off the top of my head. And that’s with largely adhering to your artificial restriction of “to the United States specifically”, since one of the hallmarks of Christianity is its aggressiveness and expansionism. American Christianity spreads its destructive effects across the world, not just here in America. It ensures that America is a force for evil in the world, something that spreads bigotry and cruelty for their own sake.
Knock it off.
Hiding which insult you’ve used does not successfully avoid the prohibition against insulting other posters in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
I don’t know any Christians who are still believers, that are interested in finding out weither it is truth or not. They seem to need a belief to keep them going, and are at peace with themselves believing as they do. Most of the one’s I know are not so much interested in fact, believe and take the pastor or priests word that it is the truth.Some regard the Bible as the Word of their God even though it is proven to be written and determined to be the word of God or at least inspired by Him by other humans.
I think of it as a tool they use to help them get through life and if it helps them be a better person then (to me) it is like a person in a marriage where one of the people are being unfaithful and the one looks the other way, not wanting to know the truth, or wanting to break up a family if they have children.
Strangely enough, there are some sects that don’t regard Catholics as Christians, but I find this amazing, since they use the Book that the Roman and Orthodox Bishops decided what books are of God or inspired by God and use that as their basis to say they are Christian but Catholics aren’t, even though in their creed they say," I believe in the holy catholic church". The word Catholic meaning universal. (one thing Constantine wanted in Christianity when he had the Bishops meet at the council of Nicea). One’s belief in the NT is belief in the Catholic Church It was united until the year 1,000 when the Roman and Orthodox separated.
The Council of Nicea? That time – after sun-worshiper Constantine’s false conversion – was when the real Christians went underground! They did not re-emerge until the time of Martin Luther! Haven’t you ever read Jack Chick?! See Baptist Successionism.
Did the needle hurt? Who said anything about tithes? The real estate that church property has, land and building is more than just a deduction, it is 100% off of the tax rolls. I don’t think it’s unreasonable in an estimate to think this has amounted to trillions of tax-free dollars that have been exempt over centuries which is what I said.
ABC poll which dealt with how many Americans take the biblical stories literally. From their poll we learn that 60% of Americans believe Noah and a global flood. 64% agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors. This was from a sampling of a little over 1,000 adults with a plus or minus margin of error of 3 percentage points.
The poll found that 75% of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 73% in Noah and the ark, while among evangelical Protestants those figures were 87% for creation and 87% in Noah and the ark. Among Catholics it was considerably less.
Rev. Charles Nalls found the figures surprising and reassuring, and he said that America is reading their Bible more than we thought. Further he notes, “This indicates a strong alliance among Americans with the inerrant word of God, as opposed to simply the inspired word of God, as viewed in the context of faith tradition.”
Other polls don’t show that Americans take the bible as literally as this ABC poll with some as low as one-third, others around half, and even if it is of the lowest poll figures, it is still too dam high.
Point taken. Sorry. Won’t do it again.
It seems to me that the OP has [inadvertently, it would seem] reconstituted Pascal’s Wager, through the prism of a devout (or seemingly devout) atheism. Ironically, it makes his argument irrational. (Using *irrational *correctly; as in the argument is without reason)
Pascal was hardly an agnostic, but approached the dilemma from an agnostic, objective POV. Either God “is” or he “is not”, he accepted. He also accepted that through reason (read: rationality) one could come to either conclusion, or belief.
He posited though, that a person choosing to live as if God “is” has infinitely more to gain than one has to lose if, in the end, we find God “isn’t.”
So Pascal could see reason in both atheism and theism. Through probability he wondered if we could hedge our eternal cosmic bet even if we were uncertain of our convictions. (whether God “is” or isn’t") In other words, what’s the risk/reward ratio of living as if we had faith (i.e. Christianity) even if we lacked it?
Like Pascal, the OP lists the apparent benefits of behaving like a Christian, without being a Christian. But while Pascal saw how reason could produce both atheism and theism, the blindness that a devout belief produces has left the OP blind to the reality that reason can produce theism, and Christianity, one flavor of theism.
Which god?
Does it matter?
The OP says (correctly) “I’m sure this applies equally well to other religions, but I’m not in a position to know the extent to which this is the case, hence the focus on Christianity.”
I mean, if for the purpose of this discussion a distinction is to made between different Gods, we will be discussing the relative quality of reason (or rationality) or caprice in the different Gods.
By revealing the caprice of some Gods (cue up the Pink Unicorns) you’ll be discussing the rationality (reason) involved in the different approaches.
And if you can’t see the difference between Jehovah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster you’re not revealing irrationality. You’re revealing your devoutness.