• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I am Not a Christian

TrueScotsman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
1,034
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My argument will be structured as follows.

Argument #1 | The Problem of Evil

Argument #2 | Problems with the Bible

Argument #3 | More Complex Explanations of Reality

Argument #1 | The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is an internal critique of theistic worldview, which states that the level of observed evil is compatible with the idea that there is a benevolent god who has personal affection for each human being. I feel that the best way to portray this argument is to tell actual stories from history. Not just of particular people's experiences, but of massive impacts from the very spread of Christianity itself.

In the mid 1800s China was a powder keg, economic decline, natural disasters and humiliation at the hands of the British in the First Opium War left the Qing dynasty on the brink. This defeat by the British also opened up avenues for missionaries to begin spreading the gospel. One pamphlet landed in the hands ofa man, Hong Xiuquan who had been studying and failing to pass the civil services examinations. Upon one such failure, he had a nervous breakdown which led to a vision where he discovered he had a heavenly family, and that god lamented that all the people were worshiping demons instead of him and that the demons infesting heaven should be slain.

It would not be for a few years, when he failed the exam for the fourth time that he pulled out the pamphlets again, and the interpretation for him was affirmed. That he was the younger literal brother of Jesus Christ and that he was going to destroy the idolatry of Buddhism and Confucianism.

Due to the disruptions already taking place in China, many flocked to his cause and established a rebellious Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. This Total War became the largest internal conflict in Chinese history, and perhaps the deadliest in all of history. Estimates for the death toll from this war that started in 1851 and ended in 1864 range from 20 million to as high as 70-100 million people on the high end. (Link)

It is said that perhaps 1,000,000 people were executed when this "Heavenly Kingdom" was brought down. The Yangtze region's population was so diminished that labor became more expensive than land. Suffering experienced in this conflict is unimaginable, and if one were forced to endure or witness such a thing, I can scarce understand how they could believe there is a benevolent god who established this world.

Even if this is a "fallen" world, it seems that even spreading the "good news" can lead to untold tragedy, just by obeying the command to go to all the corners of the world to share it. This would then lead to many in China hating Christianity, quite understandably, but of course on Christian dogma this would portend their doom in Hell for rejecting the messiah. Kind of a double whammy to the Chinese people that this god is alleged to care about.

Argument #2 | Problems with the Bible

Recent Biblical scholarship has yielded a lot of ground on the falsehoods that were previously claimed by apologists and preachers concerning the books of the Bible. Largely none of them were authored by whom they have been historically claimed to be. Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and none of the gospels were written by their alleged authors. Paul is thought to have only authored 6 of the existing letters, with others missing (did god lose some books, why would those not have been included if found?).

Why should we trust individuals who often misuse a name, such as the pseudapigraphas written in Paul's name to be representative of god, when they are from the outset misrepresenting themselves? We have no idea how the vast majority of the Bible was constructed, who wrote the books, when exactly did they write them, etc. If the reports of Jesus are written by some random dudes who weren't even there, why should your eternity be destined on such an decision?

Much more could be said about the problems with the Bible, but ask me your questions or give me your challenges regarding how I would answer arguments in favor or against the Bible. I think this particular issue of their unreliability makes all the other dominoes fall, so to speak.
 
Argument #3 | More Complex Explanations of Reality

With advances in recent science, our picture of reality has been changing quite substantially. The days of reducing everything down to its fundamental particles is over, advances in the Philosophy of Science-Biology have yielded a much more complex ontology to the universe. That over the historical timeline of the universe, matter has evolved based upon the movement and structure of particles. Carbon became the basis of life because of the interactions of its structure with other atoms, but the molecules and subsequent proteins produced by these atoms have features and functions which are novel to that scale and not discernible merely by an analysis of the functions and properties of the component parts.

The brain is an area where the mode of thinking is especially helpful. One could explain the activity of the brain in a totally reductive way, observe the blood transporting oxygen and nutrients throughout, witness the releasing and reuptake of neurotransmitters, etc. But this explanation will not be sufficient to explain what functions the brain is performing. The brain is a neurophysiological structure, which is subdivided into smaller structures such as the Thalamus which is really also subdivided into even smaller structures with more discreet functions. Is human language really equipped to explain such complex interactions, such as the ones going on in our brain?

The mind itself is I think an emergent function of the brain, which is to say it is the emergent function of a symphony of complex scales of interaction. There are many functions of the brain that we are not actively conscious of as well, that is because the brain was built by evolution and the brain was not originally "designed" to be a consciousness machine.

Why does someone need a mythology, when we have reality. That human beings are stardust, that we who are alive are uniquely occasioned to witness this emergent universe, and that civilization and culture is a construction of mankind. Longing for another world I think deprecates this life, which is the only thing certain that this life is true and real. Why would one give control away over that one life, and hope for another one in some existence one is totally uncertain of?
 
Argument #3 | More Complex Explanations of Reality

With advances in recent science, our picture of reality has been changing quite substantially. The days of reducing everything down to its fundamental particles is over, advances in the Philosophy of Science-Biology have yielded a much more complex ontology to the universe. That over the historical timeline of the universe, matter has evolved based upon the movement and structure of particles. Carbon became the basis of life because of the interactions of its structure with other atoms, but the molecules and subsequent proteins produced by these atoms have features and functions which are novel to that scale and not discernible merely by an analysis of the functions and properties of the component parts.

The brain is an area where the mode of thinking is especially helpful. One could explain the activity of the brain in a totally reductive way, observe the blood transporting oxygen and nutrients throughout, witness the releasing and reuptake of neurotransmitters, etc. But this explanation will not be sufficient to explain what functions the brain is performing. The brain is a neurophysiological structure, which is subdivided into smaller structures such as the Thalamus which is really also subdivided into even smaller structures with more discreet functions. Is human language really equipped to explain such complex interactions, such as the ones going on in our brain?

The mind itself is I think an emergent function of the brain, which is to say it is the emergent function of a symphony of complex scales of interaction. There are many functions of the brain that we are not actively conscious of as well, that is because the brain was built by evolution and the brain was not originally "designed" to be a consciousness machine.

Why does someone need a mythology, when we have reality. That human beings are stardust, that we who are alive are uniquely occasioned to witness this emergent universe, and that civilization and culture is a construction of mankind. Longing for another world I think deprecates this life, which is the only thing certain that this life is true and real. Why would one give control away over that one life, and hope for another one in some existence one is totally uncertain of?

I choose to discuss only Point #3. That is because I consider myself a "Christian." Not because I support any particular church or sect, as having experience with several over the years I've found them either too dogmatic or too esoteric for my taste.

No; I consider myself "Christian" because I like the story of Jesus, and I admire the tenet's which have been directly attributed to him by those who are alleged to have been witnesses to his teachings. Whether he be the son of God, or the son of Man, I believe in what he was trying to lead us to think, feel, and do.

But it is this Point #3, the "Scientific" argument that I take exception with.

It simply does nothing to explain "existence," i.e. how did "everything" start? I don't mean with the "big bang" theory, but what is the nothing within which it existed AND how the "something" we call energy/matter/whatever come to be before it "blew up" and spread out?

Yes, we are using science to learn more and more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. But even our wisest scientists recognize we are only aware of a fraction of a fraction of the knowledge of existence.

We can see into one and two dimensional spheres, and exist in our own 3 dimensional sphere. Yet we also recognize the possibilities of dimensions beyond our own, and multiverses paralleling our own.

The universe we do live in is vast and we live on a single speck less significant than any single atom of our own construction.

Hell, we could be an experiment in some "greater being's" universal sized microscope much like a micro-organism studied by a human biologist or perhaps geneticist.

You've placed your "faith" in science. I share a belief that science may provide us with many answers...in time.

However, just because some people have come to believe in deity, deities, or nothing...does not mean their belief systems are any more or less valid that yours.
 
Last edited:
It's been my experience that people need/seek hope. Hope that tomorrow will be better than today.

This compulsive need also extends to thoughts beyond this life. Religions claim to fill this niche, and provide the sustenance of hope.

I'm an agnostic, but I can also appreciate the unique dynamics of a hope-fulfilling-afterlife.
 
I choose to discuss only Point #3. That is because I consider myself a "Christian." Not because I support any particular church or sect, as having experience with several over the years I've found them either too dogmatic or too esoteric for my taste.

No; I consider myself "Christian" because I like the story of Jesus, and I admire the tenet's which have been directly attributed to him by those who are alleged to have been witnesses to his teachings. Whether he be the son of God, or the son of Man, I believe in what he was trying to lead us to think, feel, and do.
Who are you, Thomas Jefferson reincarnated? Do you have a term for yourself, to describe what you particularly believe? Agnostic Christian? Cultural Christian? Religious Fictionalist? It seems you are iffy on the metaphysical questions, but think the ethics is solid and valid, is that right?

I would say that I think one can arrive at similar views concerning love and the other virtues of the Bible independent of a Biblical analysis. These emerged from a cultural history which tried to figure out how to live in the world. That has value, but if one reads that text it asserts that the ethical outcomes of the religion are connected to the metaphysical change which occurs in one who believes. I don't think that a foundationalist deontological ethics can be established on the basis of the Bible, given its credibility issues mentioned in the OP. Too flimsy a ladder to scale, IMO.

But it is this Point #3, the "Scientific" argument that I take exception with.

It simply does nothing to explain "existence," i.e. how did "everything" start? I don't mean with the "big bang" theory, but what is the nothing within which it existed AND how the "something" we call energy/matter/whatever come to be before it "blew up" and spread out?
Well, I think this question still has work, but the progress made by science in the areas of abiogenesis and indeed the origins of the universe are strong enough for me to think that the existence of a god in the traditional way is very unlikely. For instance, I discussed in my way of viewing the world as "Emergence," which indeed we can see that atoms have component parts, and those component parts of component parts. These hadrons which exist as a sort of wave or field of massless energy, could have potentially been fluctuating for an endless amount of time. Perhaps it was the emergence of mass, from these massless structures/waves that originated the singularity which transformed that energy into matter. I think that's a much better approach than the god hypothesis, which fundamentally shuts down scientific inquiry into these questions. One day there will likely be a well understood answer for both abiogenesis (most likely contender is hydrothermal vents and RNA world) and I think that Quantum Mechanics is the most promising field in terms of learning the origins of the universe.

Here is another example if you're interested: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
And another informative paper from a guy out of the Theory Department at CERN: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/880/1/012001/pdf

Its important to theorize about science, because that yields new hypotheses that can be tested. Which is why naturalism is almost inherent to science, because one must wonder about the structure and causal sequence of events in spacetime in order to test an idea.

Could there be a god at the very beginning of a Quantum Universe? Perhaps, but to me that would be a very different kind of a god, more of a "ground to being" or more sophisticated form of Deism in which this being created an evolutionary universe. I don't think any of that is needed or helpful really, beyond the human oriented construction of trying to maintain behavior and a purpose for yourself in this life. Which I think is achievable without the baggage of human created forms of theism.
 
Yes, we are using science to learn more and more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. But even our wisest scientists recognize we are only aware of a fraction of a fraction of the knowledge of existence.
Yes, but its not like that territory was unoccupied, religion was the explanation for almost all phenomena. Heck to Jonathan Edwards, we didn't really have a material existence, but existed in the mind of god along with the rest of the universe. It is harder now to say something is true, than it was before, thanks to science and philosophy. Which is how it should be, we need robust knowledge. Based upon multiple means of analysis performed in community and collaboration of peer scientists along with other multidisciplinary perspectives in order to better understand reality. Science understands quite a bit I would say, our theories are still under construction, but human knowledge is a story of progress with hills and valleys. There are no short cuts.


We can see into one and two dimensional spheres, and exist in our own 3 dimensional sphere. Yet we also recognize the possibilities of dimensions beyond our own, and multiverses paralleling our own.
I don't think a multiverse perspective is necessary for naturalism, nor even if one existed could there be some kind of "space" between by which to travel over to a different reality. I think we have a pretty robust picture of the universe thus far, and have accounted for all kinds of levels to reality. The way forward to answering the questions of parallel universe or dimensions, or what matter populates the universe will be achieved through scientific progress.

The universe we do live in is vast and we live on a single speck less significant than any single atom of our own construction.
Barring aliens, we might be the most complexly organized organisms in the universe. While there is no cosmic significance of that fact, the atoms don't care, I think we can take existential account of our situation being thrust into this mysterious universe. We care, we are significant because others exist here with us for this stretch of time that we inhabit this small speck. Which is why we ought to be concerned about THIS life, and not some conceived afterlife where our true rewards will be received.

Hell, we could be an experiment in some "greater being's" universal sized microscope much like a micro-organism studied by a human biologist or perhaps geneticist.
Only if you fall into Cartesian errors.

You've placed your "faith" in science. I share a belief that science may provide us with many answers...in time.
Love how its called faith, when one accepts robust scientific evidence. The word should be used that way, it is just a jab to try and portray people who accept science (and no metaphysics) as having their own religious system. I believe in one world, the natural one, in which I am typing on this keyboard with this primate evolved fingers which will be sent at the speed of light over the internet. When a metaphysical explanation has sufficient evidence to be asserted, then I will seriously consider it. They don't get special pleading to muddy the waters of what we do know concerning the natural world.

However, just because some people have come to believe in deity, deities, or nothing...does not mean their belief systems are any more or less valid that yours.
Statements like this just shut your brain off to criticism. No need to analyze Christianity, or express your own view, there is no arbiter to determine who wins, so why try?

I think progress is made through the discussion.
 
It's been my experience that people need/seek hope. Hope that tomorrow will be better than today.
I would agree hope is important, beings which conceive of far into the future can have little hope in the present if all they see before them is suffering. Also I would say that hope for things in the world to change is important, even conservative religions have this element except through the fact that the world will end and we will then enjoy a New Earth which is merged with heaven.

This compulsive need also extends to thoughts beyond this life. Religions claim to fill this niche, and provide the sustenance of hope.
Have you read Ernest Becker?

“What does it mean to be a self-conscious animal? The idea is ludicrous, if it is not monstrous. It means to know that one is food for worms. This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consiousness of self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expression and with all this yet to die. It seems like a hoax, which is why one type of cultural man rebels openly against the idea of God. What kind of deity would crate such a complex and fancy worm food?”
― Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

I'm an agnostic, but I can also appreciate the unique dynamics of a hope-fulfilling-afterlife.
Wish there would have been a census before a being decided to create billions of eternal conscious creatures. I am content with the duration of my days here.
 
Argument #0 - I don't believe in God. :cool:
 
To quote a current AT&T TV commercial...

While some say "I'll believe it when I see it," one man says that those people have it backward. Certain things you can see only when you believe.
 
I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any other religious belief system for one reason only. After thoroughly studying Christianity, and to a lesser degree, Islam and some of the Eastern religions, the data ( for me ) leads me to conclude that men created God(s), as opposed to vice versa....first to explain the unexplainable, and later for more nefarious reasons. That said, I am certainly not here to convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince others to renounce their respective beliefs, and anyone that derives peace and/or solace from their religious beliefs, I consider to be a good thing, providing they don't try to force their beliefs upon me or threaten me with unproven, eternal negatives for rejecting their personal religious beliefs.
 
To quote a current AT&T TV commercial...
In other words, test MY worldview and then you will see. I find every religion makes this claim, which is why I find it universally uncompelling.
 
In other words, test MY worldview and then you will see. I find every religion makes this claim, which is why I find it universally uncompelling.

In other words...no...there is a reason you'll find no believers willing to engage with you on this thread, including me...believe or don't believe whatever you like...I will do the same...
 
I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any other religious belief system for one reason only. After thoroughly studying Christianity, and to a lesser degree, Islam and some of the Eastern religions, the data ( for me ) leads me to conclude that men created God(s), as opposed to vice versa....first to explain the unexplainable, and later for more nefarious reasons.
Those nefarious reasons have had their repercussions right on up until the present. I don't think one should be silent on matters of our existence when people who have far less sufficient evidence are doing everything they can to spread a worldview which I think is arguably inadequate. Which isn't to say that all Christianity is undermined, but I think fundamentalist form should probably carry a social cost for believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Criticizing religion from the outside in a sense part of religious reform on the long term, and I think all for the better.

That said, I am certainly not here to convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince others to renounce their respective beliefs, and anyone that derives peace and/or solace from their religious beliefs, I consider to be a good thing, providing they don't try to force their beliefs upon me or threaten me with unproven, eternal negatives for rejecting their personal religious beliefs.
I think truth is found in the analysis of the LOT of the arguments, which means that I think as many arguments available should be invited to be heard in the human conversation on the topic of divinity. As a former Christian and someone who thinks much of this culture has been directly harmful to my own life and others around me, I think my opinion on the subject of the religion, Christianity is of relevance to the conversation. Its not the final word, even for myself, I'm open to being proven wrong, given how many times in the past I have found myself to be wrong.
 
In other words...no...there is a reason you'll find no believers willing to engage with you on this thread, including me...believe or don't believe whatever you like...I will do the same...
They think you're a heretic bound for Hell! This is some strange alliance, indeed.

Thanks for proving that you aren't interested in sincere discussion. Even if YOU were to write out something thoughtful to the OP, I would respond in substance, as I have to all the other posters in this thread.
 
They think you're a heretic bound for Hell! This is some strange alliance, indeed.

Thanks for proving that you aren't interested in sincere discussion. Even if YOU were to write out something thoughtful to the OP, I would respond in substance, as I have to all the other posters in this thread.

lol...
 
Bye, why you even posted in this thread is a mystery. As if I cared about your non-participation. Thanks for the PSA.

lol...you posted to me 1st, not the other way around...
 
Those nefarious reasons have had their repercussions right on up until the present. I don't think one should be silent on matters of our existence when people who have far less sufficient evidence are doing everything they can to spread a worldview which I think is arguably inadequate. Which isn't to say that all Christianity is undermined, but I think fundamentalist form should probably carry a social cost for believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Criticizing religion from the outside in a sense part of religious reform on the long term, and I think all for the better.


I think truth is found in the analysis of the LOT of the arguments, which means that I think as many arguments available should be invited to be heard in the human conversation on the topic of divinity. As a former Christian and someone who thinks much of this culture has been directly harmful to my own life and others around me, I think my opinion on the subject of the religion, Christianity is of relevance to the conversation. Its not the final word, even for myself, I'm open to being proven wrong, given how many times in the past I have found myself to be wrong.

My religious views are complicated but one of my main problems with Christianity is the continued existence of the book of revelation and the belief in Armageddon. One of the main reasons why I am bothered by the prophesied end times is because It makes people feel like humanity has no control of its own destiny, or that there is nothing to aspire to or work towards something greater.

I refuse to believe that humanity is destined to die on earth, I want humanity to thrive and reach for the stars.

Put it simply, heaven has no appeal to me.
 
I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any other religious belief system for one reason only. After thoroughly studying Christianity, and to a lesser degree, Islam and some of the Eastern religions, the data ( for me ) leads me to conclude that men created God(s), as opposed to vice versa....first to explain the unexplainable, and later for more nefarious reasons. That said, I am certainly not here to convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince others to renounce their respective beliefs, and anyone that derives peace and/or solace from their religious beliefs, I consider to be a good thing, providing they don't try to force their beliefs upon me or threaten me with unproven, eternal negatives for rejecting their personal religious beliefs.

Personally, I don’t wish hell on anyone. I mean maybe pedos, but even there, eternity is an awful long time. I know some of my Christian brethren wield hell like a dangerous animal they own and that is not ok. If I can pose a hypothetical, though. If you see kids playing on railroad tracks and you know or believe a train is coming, what would you do?
 
Personally, I don’t wish hell on anyone. I mean maybe pedos, but even there, eternity is an awful long time. I know some of my Christian brethren wield hell like a dangerous animal they own and that is not ok. If I can pose a hypothetical, though. If you see kids playing on railroad tracks and you know or believe a train is coming, what would you do?

Of course I would remove the children, although I don't see the relevance to your hypothetical and my post, or the thread topic. Care to expand ?
 
Back
Top Bottom