Why are all Christians atheists?

Thank you, sweetie! Its good to be back, though I'll be off-line again in a few days because I'm moving. I don't know exactly when I'll be back online after the move, but it shouldn't be for more than a week or two.

I would say that a superstition hangs on a false causal agent - for example, all the superstitions involving bad luck, as if breaking a mirror or seeing a black cat "causes" future events.So, to my mind, belief in God is not a superstition in itself. But believing that God causes famine and pestilence to punish us is superstition.Similarly, belief in the vague "power of prayer" is not necessarily superstition. But belief in the power of prayer to "make stuff happen" is.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Someone marginally mentioned this, and I was going to say the same but never got to it yet with the 'superstition' musings coming up. IOW, I agree that the OP is faulty in not going far enough.Christians aren't rejecting other gods, they are rejecting entire religions. I am not going to pull Thor or Zeus out of an entire pantheon of gods. These figures are meaningless without the context which they are in.What the OP would be better saying, is why do we reject polytheism and other beliefs? Of course the answers to this are the same old, same old and vary from person to person.I do not feel that rejection IS the right word for the way I view other more ancient religions. I would more likely call them obsolete rather than rejected. Latin is not 'rejected' by me, it was rejected a long time ago because it no longer had use or meaning, and because it evolved into another language/s. I can walk around quoting it all day sure, but it won't be an effective form of communication at this point! It is not a matter of calling Latin 'false' and my reasons for not speaking Latin are not a judgement call upon its one time existance.That's a horrendous analogy! Anyway...if someone would present a more modern competitor to God and ask why I rejected that concept, it would be a slightly better question. I would still say that its not a disbelief in that God, but a disbelief in that portrayal of God. It's not an incredulity, it's not a 'my God is better/more powerful/saner/realistic/perfect God'. It's just a God that makes sense to me.Oh, and welcome back!Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

As OP I'd like to respond - I am an atheist and I accept polytheism, montheism and atheism as people's right to believe what they want. In fact most atheists hold the same ground - "we don't believe it, but you go right ahead." so long as you don't try and force your beliefs into the school system, or use them to lead us into a war.I know that polythesists don't have a problem with athiests or monotheists. When was the last time you heard a Hindu ridiculing a Christian for believing in only one God?The problem is that the monotheists DO have a problem with both Atheists and Polytheists. In fact, they have such a problem with it, it's lead to damn near 2000 years of genocide.What's more, the monotheists have a problem with OTHER monotheists!If modern Monotheists still supported Ra worship along the lines of Akhenaten's original monotheism, then I'd say, "Hey, you know what, you guys were the first on the field, you get to play."But that's not what's going on. Modern monotheists are Johnny-come-lately's to the concept of monotheism and are STILL telling everyone else that they are wrong wrong wrong.What gives?

I almost went and looked up the Saturn/Jupiter thing, but decided to trust my memory at the last minute. Nowadays, that's never a good idea. I do.

Are you planning to explain the difference between a god who kills his (few) children by eating them and a god who kills his (millions of) children and all animal and plant life by drowing all of them?And again, where is it written that gods are required to be benevolent to be considered legitimate?

That's all fine and dandy Nuggin, but that isn't what you asked/stated in the OP.I appreciate your effort to make Christians even lower on your esteem ladder, but none of the monotheists who have responded to you are hostile or condemnatory toward other religions. When was the last time you lived in a predominantly Hindu society? I mean, how many Hindus do you hear period in any work day or any news report?Hindus obviously do not think monotheists have all the answers. 'What gives' is that you are not doing your research. Religions don't stay the same. The Christianity we have today is most likely a descendant of the same monotheism of Akhenatan's. It is also, as far as I know, still up in the air as to the extent of his monotheism. The only Johnny-come-lately is Jesus, and I am so sorry that you expect things to stay static in the belief world for believers to have any credibility. I bet I could find you elsewhere protesting the 'old-fashioned' and ignorant views of monotheists.

Agreed. But again, 'false' is in the eye of the beholder.The black cat stuff...that seems a no-brainer. What I was wondering earlier was whether some superstitions have removed a more legitimate agent from the belief. What if 'black cat' was a servant of Loki as serpents were seen as minions of Satan? Not that this is true! but if the true perp were removed from the scene, the black cat would look very innocent.I am not sure how a ladder could be the cause of anything!Anyway... Now I disagree. The agent here is still God. God would have to be proven false in order to prove that what He made happen is false. The agent must be observed and rendered as impotent/false etc. AND this can be done by any objecter. (o?)What you could say in relation to ID type stuff is; cause = life exists, so effect = God exists could still be seen as a superstition. I don't know that I am being clear...I assume you say that belief in God itself is not superstition because no effect has been assosciated with it yet. I am thinking that God was the effect of other causes?

I was thinking of "false" in terms of being unverifiable by empirical means. That's backwards thinking again. It's innocent until proven guilty, remember? The accusation is false until "proven" true by weight of evidence. I'm limiting the term "superstition" to events that can not be linked causally (and empirically) to God, etc. I'm saying that "answered prayers" are superstition because we can not know whether or not God actually intervened. We can not know that there was no (coincidental) natural cause.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Man, you guys gotta get on the same page.I've got two completely oposite answers on two different threads. You're claiming that Christianity changes through time while Jj is saying that it can not, will not, has never and will never change one bit.Maybe you two should form a thread of your own.

Hi Ana,I find your beliefs intriguing. You seem to embrace a form of Christianity that centres on spirituality rather than strict doctrinal adherence. Are you a member of a more progressive sect, or a liberal branch of the Church of England perhaps?Which brings me to my question. In refuting the idea of the religious atheist do you believe that all religions, in their own way, are praying to the same God, or in the case of polytheistic faiths like Hinduism, facets of a single God?

Well jj seems to still be in the very early stages of learning anything about Christianity from a historical perspective. When it comes to facts though, it is quite obvious that "Christianity" is constantly changing and evolving. The very existence of something called "The Reformation" is adequate evidence that Christianity does change.There also is the basic issue of "Authority". Your statement seems to be the classic fundamentalist cry for authority, for someone to tell you what to think.There is no need for them to get on the same page. Unless you wish, like so many Christians seem to wish, for some Authority to tell you what you should think, you are perfectly capable of making up your own mind. Consider the opinions of Anastasia and jj, but also look at the evidence available.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you'd like. You didn't ask, so I didn't figure it was necessary. A God who creates and rules the world is entitled to decree the death penalty for sufficient violation of his will.A god whose passions and jealousies cause him to eat his physically generated children is a monster. There is no resemblance between those two beings.Shoot, I forgot the second question...added by edit: That's not written anywhere, but when a large, wide issue like which God is real is being debated, this is something that gets discussed. In context of the whole debate, it's a significant issue.Edited by truthlover, : forgot to answer something

quote:

---

If you'd like. You didn't ask, so I didn't figure it was necessary. A God who creates and rules the world is entitled to decree the death penalty for sufficient violation of his will.

​

A god whose passions and jealousies cause him to eat his physically generated children is a monster. There is no resemblance between those two beings.

---

A god who kills millions, including entirely innocent animals, plants and children (including infants and those being carried by pregnant women) in a terrifying flood is a far greater monster.But your own God regretted killing everything in the flood, didn't he? Doesn't that mean that he made a mistake in killing every living thing, and that maybe it was the wrong thing to have done?I don't know which is worse, the God-caused drowning/suffering of millions of innocent animals and children or the "Oops, I guess I overreacted. Sorry."Both stories are fucked up, TL. Both portray sociopathic behavior.

quote:

---

That's not written anywhere, but when a large, wide issue like which God is real is being debated, this is something that gets discussed. In context of the whole debate, it's a significant issue.

---

The reason I asked that question was because you wrote: My points are:1) Drowning innocent animals and children would get your God prosecuted and punished today, so I fail to see why this point is in your favor.2) You seem to imply that gods shouldn't be considered gods if they aren't "good" or benevolent, or something. I don't understand at all why you would think that. The OT god is a jealous, venegeful, bloodthirsty god that would be tried for war crimes for his many genocides. Does this mean that, to you, the OT Yaweh is "far from being a god, but is rather a criminal."?

It's reasonable to disbelieve in the truth of a claimed god if the deity isn't benevolent or shows wildly irrational behaviour.For me, the more forgiving and understanding/intelligent the God is, the more likely the deity is, to be the correct deity IF it is assumed there is one.Some gods are superstitious completely, and only exist to explain the inexplicable. They can be removed parsimoniously, because they are ruled out as a cause. Whereas those gods who aren't only there to explain things, can still exist.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.