Christianity - True or Not?

Interesting Pheonix

the mind is not quite as definitive as one might expect

as you know

Christianity is true in the sense that christianity exists. No more.

When we look at the scars this religion has left on humankind, I'm tampted to say that it is as real as a bonafide psychosis.

agree, but not just christianity

all religion is delusion imo

especiallythe four monotheistic faiths










yes four islam christianity judaism and zoroastrianism

There's no real proof that reality itself is not delusion. We just have to take it on faith.

cyberman -

The First Cause Argument merely sounds reasonable to the undiscerning; it is sophistic. Your contention that " ... This does not, however, render absurd the notion that events have a cause ... " is a straw man; no such assertion as your alleged "notion" has been presented; some events indeed do have a determinable cause, and no assertion to the contrary has been made.

You go on to say " ... Quantum evenst occur within spacetime - this does not address the question of the origins of spacetime. Quantum events are not the spontaneous generation of matter in a universe where matter does not already exist. How the energy/matter came to be in that place and that time is indiscernable. That doesn't mean new matter has been added to the universe ... ", presenting yet more straw. Spacetime as we observe it is a consequence of the universe we observe, it is but an attribute of that universe, a subset, a component, its origin coincident with and requisite to the universe we observe. Our observational abilities likewise are consequent to and wholly dependent upon the universe we observe, as we ourselves are components of that universe. That quantum events are observed to occur within spacetime is irrelevant, as spacetime is the top-level quanitfiable currently within our observational capability; it is but that by which we are able to observe and measure. Further, that quantum events are observed perforce demonstrates that spacetime as we observe it is not an exclusionary absolute; that we observe quantum events is a circumstance requiring there be something other than the spacetime we observe. Further yet, that quantum events occur within the observable universe, evidently neither adding nor removing matter, energy, or information from a universe within which same are known to exist means nothing other than that we observe quantum events within our observable universe; that the the origin or causation of such events be indiscernable means only that we - at least presently - lack the means by which to discern such. Again, there is no reason to suppose the universe we observe be the only universe, and much reason to conclude it is not. All we reasonably may conclude is that we observe and experience the universe we observe and experience because it is the universe we observe and experience. Anything beyond that is mere conjecture; I refer you once again to Hume.

Adding to your sophistic strawpile, you say " ... the 'universe' is, by definition, everything that is ... ", a patently incorrect assertion, as no such condition or state of being exists; the universe we observe is not "all there is", it merely is the universe we are able to observe and experience. Again, I refer you to Hume; perception-based deduction is dependent upon experience, experience providing the criteria by which we arrive at conclusions. That which is or may be apart from the universe we observe and experience by definition is apart from our observation and experience, unavailable to our observation and experience by the constraints of our current ability to observe and therefore to experience.

You say as well ... If what we think of as the universe is only a part of a greater universe, then that only shows that the universe is bigger than it seems to be from where we are sitting ... ", more straw in that "bigger" is an inapplicable qualifier; the apparent size of the observable universe is the apparent size of the observable universe; the observable universe is only the universe which is observable, which universe need not necessarilly be, and by strong indication is not, the only universe extant. Its just our universe, as defined by the laws and principles we thus far have discerned. Going beyond that requires arrogant presumption.

Further burdening the camel hauling your straw, you say " ... You have not addressed the question of why and how there is anything, rather than nothing ... "; why and how there is what we observe and experience proceed from the circumstance of the emergence of the universe we observe and experience - the spacetime we observe and experience is a consequence of the only universe we observe and experience and is the yardstick by which we observe and experience the universe we observe and experience. Again, quantum events demonstrate there is other to our universe than that which to date we have observed, experienced, and defined (not "more" or "bigger", mind you - just "other"), and mathematics, physics, and logic indicate compellingly that the universe we observe and experience is not an exclusionary absolute. Your "Anything vs Nothing" proposition is an absurdity; first, it is a false dichotomy - that there might be "Anything" does not entail a sole alternative that there be "Nothing", second, it is self-cancellingly meaningless in that were there "Nothing" there could be no "Anything", and finally, as we are here, in our observable universe, having this discussion, it is established, a posteriori, that there be "Anything".


Disagree as you wish; I have demonstrated the First Cause Argument to be not "Reasonable" but merely Sophistic.

thats being a bit too clever cy

Yes, I'm too clever for my own good. I'm so clever I don't know anything...

What timber said. And he didn't even touch on what I think is the biggest flaw in the "first cause" argument. Namely, how long has this god existed before he made the universe? If he always existed, then he breaks the proposed axiom that everything needs a cause. If he came into existence at some point, then what (or who) caused that?

It may boil down to what your definition of 'time' is.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I find the whole "religion is delusional" argument void of any useful information. You can no more disprove the POV of a particular religion than you can prove / disprove the existence of God.

Kiwimac

Well I happen to be reading Richard Dawkins The God Delusion at the moment and he puts up some pretty strong arguments both for the improbability of God and reasons for religious belief.

I have no wish to trample over someone's deeply held religious beliefs just for the sake of causing offence. I used to think well if thats what they want to believe in fine, its doing me no harm, and maybe if they get some comfort from it, rubbish though it may be, then thats ok. But things have changed recently. Religious belief is doing harm, and a great deal of it, though it didnt directly affect me. But now it does. I cant go on the tube without a thought for the people killed last year. I cant get on a plane without going through numerous security checks. Many thousands, millions over the centuries, have been killed as a direct result of religious belief. But now its getting personal. You cant watch a play or write a book or produce some academic paper, or even just say what you honestly believe to be the case, without some deranged religious fanatic trying to kill you. Well I've had enough. Its time to stand up and speak plainly about religion even[/i] at the risk of upsetting religious sensibilities. We have overlooked or politely ignored the harm religious belief does for too long. Sadly overtly religious people fall into two categories, the delusional, and the dangerously delusional. Its time we applied some antiseptic reason to their disease.

ok, lets say that for arguments sake God does not exist. however, Christianity still does. how can you criticise a way of life that not only provides a very high moral standing, happiness in all situations and offers somebody to share your feelings with and confide in whether or not they're actually there. whether or not God exists, Christianity - or religion in general - cannot be perceived as a bad thing can it? i mean yes its caused wars and death, but only for the more extreme believers and cults that have branched off from mainline religion.

I dont think all belief systems are of equal malevolence. Some are clearly "better" than others. But holding onto wacky ideas in the face of reason and evidence to the contrary is bad in itself...and certainly if its forced into the heads of impressionable young people.

i wouldn't say it was forced... its not like they tie you down and don't let you go until you devote your life... i don't think i was ''brainwashed'' by religion, i made the choice to believe, before i had even gone to church, i knew my life needed a meaning and without God i couldn't find a meaning. sure sex, drugs and booze is good, i know, i've done them all, but there was a hole in my heart that nothing could seem to fill. God fills that hole. why is it that humans have a desire to worship something greater than themselves? so many people look up to other people because they aspire to be like them, is that not a form of worship? some people devote their lives to their careers or how their house looks, is that not a form of worship? if we all so badly need to worship something in order to gain meaning to our lives then to me it seems that God placed that need in us when we were created.

So then, you are opting for one addiction over some others. Yours is a very common scenario. The radical religionists love to go after the alcoholics, the drug addicted, the mentally ill. They know that happy, fulfilled people usually have no interest in the fundamentalist kinds of religion. They want people to fill their ranks, and spread their word, so they proselytize people who are unhappy, confused, and looking for some meaning in their lives.

Think of the "moonies", and the hare krishnas of years ago. Did those groups try to convert stable, happy families? Of course not. They would not have made much headway. So they went after the college kids, the ones who hadn't "found themselves" yet, and enjoyed a great following there.

What you said in the passage that I quoted is very telling, and not unexpected.

The problem with filling our hearts with ideas that lack proper definition is that the heart will be an easy subject of manipulation regardless of the good intentions of the person.

I agree with steve, that the delusions of religion is a serious matter which affects us all, and which is perhaps more harmful to the peace of our species than any other aspect of our reality.
But it is the human flaw that renders it so. In many ways religions are, despite their sophisticated moral guidelines, ethically condemnable, since there are openings in any such religion to disregard morals completely and do what you want. Egotistical motives easily, too easily, find their way into God's intentions.

The other problem with the radical religions is that they are very authoritarian. They present a body of thought, and demand that a follower accept it wholesale, without question. As such, a vulnerable person is backed into a corner. If he wants to remain part of the group, he needs to follow along completely, despite any doubts that he might have. If not, he is deprived of the emotional support that these groups offer to one another.

It is so much easier to suspend judgement, and simply accept a religion's tenets, without thinking it through on your own. Critical analysis is not easy, and is certainly difficult for the individual who is grappling with his own personal demons. Thinking things through for yourself is ultimately far more satisfying for a person.

ok... so what is it in your life that fills your heart? i don't mean to be sarcastic or intrusive but i'm interested to know what it is that makes you ''happy'' if you don't ''worship'' the things i have previously stated. i take it you are suggesting that religion is a crutch for the weak minded?

What do you consider to be "radical religions"? What evidence do you have than any religion is authoritarian? Who are the vulnerable people? Why would religion want to back a "vulnerable person" into a corner? How do you know that emotional support is being withheld?

Who should judge? How do you know that those who have religion do not think it through on their own?

I think that rockpie makes some very good points, despite his/her young age.

Everybody should think things through for themselves. I am wondering if you are referring to some of those weird and wacky cults? Are you talking about mainstream religion?