why reject christianity

[Audie]

Alternative "Jesus died for sins against the ruling government"

Thanks for that. It was consistent with my understanding of a multiverse, by which I mean any unconscious source of this universe, and likely countless others.



Science discriminates against all non-science, not just creationism.



You probably mean respected scientific journals. I doubt much that calls itself science would get to the Britannica if the scientific community hasn't vetted it and found it worthy first.



Correct - a nice illustration of the god of the gaps phenomenon. The gaps were larger for Newton than Laplace. Newton inserted his god into the larger gap, and it needed to be moved again when that was filled in with the knowledge Laplace added.

Today, many of us are content just to observe the present gaps and not try to insert gods into them. It would just be guessing to do so.



I don't make a distinction. As I have told you before, there is no such thing as creation science. There is only creationists doing pseudoscience, and it's usually called the ID program.



I'd agree with all of that.



Science goes where the evidence leads without regard to how that relates to scripture. I don't consider that rebelling. That's growing.



The multiverse hypothesis accounts for fine tuning by positing that every possible universe will be formed, includingones like ours, and some that collapse back in on themselves almost immediately. Naturally, because we are alive and intelligent, we find ourselves in one where life and mind are possible.

And the multiverse does this without a god, which would presumably much more complex than an amorphous substance budding off universes like a glass of champagne producing bubbles. That sounds like a viable hypothesis to me.

I have been wondering how one would dissect
out "atheist" from "theist" science.

Makes your head spin if you try to look at the
details.

 

[Thief]

"Jesus died because of our sin"

have you been reading my stuff?

I've been posting this notion for years

 

[Audie]

A painting of God with a stern face does not mean that God has a stern face. It doesn't even mean that God has a face. It just means that the painter imagined God as having a stern face.

People who reject Christianity are rarely even aware of what the basic message of Christianity is, because they have falsely presumed that the depictions of God and Christ as imagined by some Christian or other ARE God, Christ, and Christianity. They reject the ideological substance, in complete ignorance, because all they can see are the mythological depictions as imagined by a few overly zealous, authoritarian type Christians, and they don't like them. It's the classic, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" scenario because they can't see the baby in the bathwater.

One does not have to accept the various religious depictions of God, Christ, or of some faction or other of religious Christianity to appreciate and practice the principals proposed to us by the theological ideal being offered to us through the 'revelation of Christ'. And when those ideals are couched in a different set of representations, they are often agreed to by nearly everyone.

What makes you think people who reject Christianity are unaware of what they
are rejecting?

Seems to me an assertion of facts not in evidence.

I believe if you grabbed a thousand American atheists
and the same number of "christians" you'd find the
atheists better infirmed about the bible and the
religions attached to it, than thr xians are.

For sure not "unaware".

 

[Subduction Zone]

A painting of God with a stern face does not mean that God has a stern face. It doesn't even mean that God has a face. It just means that the painter imagined God as having a stern face.

People who reject Christianity are rarely even aware of what the basic message of Christianity is, because they have falsely presumed that the depictions of God and Christ as imagined by some Christian or other ARE God, Christ, and Christianity. They reject the ideological substance, in complete ignorance, because all they can see are the mythological depictions as imagined by a few overly zealous, authoritarian type Christians, and they don't like them. It's the classic, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" scenario because they can't see the baby in the bathwater.

One does not have to accept the various religious depictions of God, Christ, or of some faction or other of religious Christianity to appreciate and practice the principals proposed to us by the theological ideal being offered to us through the 'revelation of Christ'. And when those ideals are couched in a different set of representations, they are often agreed to by nearly everyone.

It appears that you are merely reinterpreting Christianity in a manner that allows you to ignore the poor morals in the Bible. No one has said that Christianity has nothing positive to offer. The problem is that one must turn a blind eye to the countless poor morals that are part of the Bible.

 

[Audie]

Please provide evidence of this claim.

As far as i understand it "creationist science" is an oxymoron. Creationists who claim to be scientist do not want to abide by the scientific method because they know that their claims will not stand independent scrutiny. That means they are not scientists but opinion merchants

Competitor? Unlikely unless they become honest.

I had two professors, both in chemistry, that I know were creationists.

So what? Good teachers, good researchers.

If an atheist starts doing bad work, falsifies his data,
and uses his position tp try to advance a political
or anti religious agenda based on fake science,
he will face consequences

Same if a creationist went off the rails.

If a creationist can disprove ToE, terrific!

It is tiresome ignorant junk to pretend the
creationists could succeed if they were not
mistreated in the halls of academe.

(Mr. "Bond", take note? You just look silly
parroting that moldy canard.)

 

[Audie]

It appears that you are merely reinterpreting Christianity in a manner that allows you to ignore the poor morals in the Bible. No one has said that Christianity has nothing positive to offer. The problem is that one must turn a blind eye to the countless poor morals that are part of the Bible.

They deny it but-
Every christian has to do that, pick and choose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They deny it but-
Every christian has to do that, pick and choose.

Of course. Even the "literalists" . Which is a good thing. Though they may want to kill all homosexuals and nonvirgin unmarried women they manage to restrain themselves in following those parts of the Bible.

 

[Audie]

You're welcome.



Atheist science discriminates against creation science because the admins are bullies and they don't want their greatest competitor back.



No, I'm talking about encyclopedias where people can get information and make up their own minds. Creation scientists should do a better job of getting their view in it. Britannica is neutral imho. While atheist professors get their article published and are credited, creation scientists do not have as many articles in it. Wikipedia is atheist prejudiced (they're haters) and censor Christian views.



I was trying to point out that it was from earlier times and a warning from Christian theologians. What I didn't know was how extensive it was. For example, Newton used it. Bacon came along and set things straight. His separating Scripture from nature was interesting. However, he left the epistemology to people and didn't count on atheists to turn nature around in the 1850s.

What about atheist science of the gaps? Evolution has lost credibility since 2011. Most people aren't going to believe in multiverses. It has nothing to do with their lives. I believe in evolution by rapid natural selection. The evolutionary thinking involving macroevolution and origins in biology and BBT is not credible nor sustainable. I don't think the radiometric dating is correct, either, as assumptions were faulty. The above is based on circular reasoning. People fit the evidence with their basic beliefs of Darwinism instead of finding knowledge from the evidence. Darwinism was this great big breakthrough that no one heard about before. The radiometric assumptions gave it the time needed for it to work.

Is it virtuous for a Christian to make things up
and then present them as facts?

 

[PureX]

What makes you think people who reject Christianity are unaware of what they
are rejecting?

Because they aren't objecting to the ideological substance, they are objecting to the mythical depictions and representations.

 

[PureX]

It appears that you are merely reinterpreting Christianity in a manner that allows you to ignore the poor morals in the Bible.

...Or the poor images of "God", or the absurd depictions of "miracles", or the... This is the religious "bathwater" I was referring to. As opposed to the ideological "baby" that the revelation of Christ proposes to humanity: that God's love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity acting in us and through us to each other, will heal us and save us from ourselves.

No one has said that Christianity has nothing positive to offer. The problem is that one must turn a blind eye to the countless poor morals that are part of the Bible.

We are all perfectly capable of rejecting any part of the Bible for any reason at any time. The Christian ideal is not "the Bible". In fact, the greatest part of the Bible has nothing to do with the revelation of Christ or the ideal that revelation presents to us. No one is forcing you to conflate or confuse these two very different intellectual phenomena (the baby and the bathwater). You are doing that all by yourself.

 

[stvdv]

have you been reading my stuff?
I've been posting this notion for years

I have not been reading this. My own invention.
Great minds think alike, I guess
Just Common Sense

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A painting of God with a stern face does not mean that God has a stern face. It doesn't even mean that God has a face. It just means that the painter imagined God as having a stern face.

People who reject Christianity are rarely even aware of what the basic message of Christianity is, because they have falsely presumed that the depictions of God and Christ as imagined by some Christian or other ARE God, Christ, and Christianity. They reject the ideological substance, in complete ignorance, because all they can see are the mythological depictions as imagined by a few overly zealous, authoritarian type Christians, and they don't like them. It's the classic, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" scenario because they can't see the baby in the bathwater.

One does not have to accept the various religious depictions of God, Christ, or of some faction or other of religious Christianity to appreciate and practice the principals proposed to us by the theological ideal being offered to us through the 'revelation of Christ'. And when those ideals are couched in a different set of representations, they are often agreed to by nearly everyone.

oh gosh! Thats such a generalization if I ever heard one. I fall completely out of that negatiev category.

Does that train of thought brain you to god??

 

[dfnj]

why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages? the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them? don't they like a religion based on love? many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

I think the Beatitudes are really the only thing Christianity has to offer to humanity. The rest of the gospel is more about promoting religion as fandom. Christianity is not really based on love. It's based on authoritarianism. A God of unconditional love is not interested in being worshiped. It's no surprise that a King James version of the Bible where King James himself believed in the divine rights of kings would create a text legitimizing monarchy with religion. The King James version of the Bible is propaganda supporting monarchy as government.

The way the Bible got slavery wrong brings serious doubt in my mind the Bible is the word of God but really the words of the men who wrote it. The idea of "lord" just doesn't exist unless you have "slaves." You would think an omnipotent God would be slightly more egalitarian than the type of government espoused in the Bible. You would think an omnipotent creator God would love every facet of His creation equally no matter what without any conditions. The whole idea of conditional love based on judgment from authority is strange to me. An omnipotent God needs absolutely NOTHING from us. It's not like God will die or cease to exist if not enough people take Jesus Christ as their "Lord".

Does man exist to solely serve God or does the Universe exist to provide man with blessings. People just love a military style government. When salvation means becoming a "good" slave the World is much different type of place than if the Universe exists to serve man with blessings and love.

For many people who reject authoritarianism in every way shape and form having a religion based on authoritarianism is just not acceptable. My faith is in an omnipotent God of unconditional love. I will not bend my knee to ideology that claims to be based on love but is really based on hate and authoritarianism. And if my faith in an omnipotent God of unconditional love proves to be wrong then so be it.

 

[Audie]

Because they aren't objecting to the ideological substance, they are objecting to the mythical depictions and representations.

So in answer to "what makes you think" you say,
"Because" and then repeat the same assertion of
facts not in evidence.

 

[Audie]

...Or the poor images of "God", or the absurd depictions of "miracles", or the... This is the religious "bathwater" I was referring to. As opposed to the ideological "baby" that the revelation of Christ proposes to humanity: that God's love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity acting in us and through us to each other, will heal us and save us from ourselves.
We are all perfectly capable of rejecting any part of the Bible for any reason at any time. The Christian ideal is not "the Bible". In fact, the greatest part of the Bible has nothing to do with the revelation of Christ or the ideal that revelation presents to us. No one is forcing you to conflate or confuse these two very different intellectual phenomena (the baby and the bathwater). You are doing that all by yourself.

It all looks like bathwater for those outside the cults
(all of which, like you / yours have the true Truth)

 

[ChristineM]

I had two professors, both in chemistry, that I know were creationists.

So what? Good teachers, good researchers.

If an atheist starts doing bad work, falsifies his data,
and uses his position tp try to advance a political
or anti religious agenda based on fake science,
he will face consequences

Same if a creationist went off the rails.

If a creationist can disprove ToE, terrific!

It is tiresome ignorant junk to pretend the
creationists could succeed if they were not
mistreated in the halls of academe.

(Mr. "Bond", take note? You just look silly
parroting that moldy canard.)

There is something of a difference between creationists who accept the scientific method and abide by it despite their faith and the @james bond creation (oxymoron) scientists who refuse peer review but simply want their claims accepted because "god"

 

[ChristineM]

Is it virtuous for a Christian to make things up
and then present them as facts?

Not many true christians consider the need to follow commandment 8 or 9 depending what bible they favour.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is something of a difference between creationists who accept the scientific method and abide by it despite their faith and the @james bond creation (oxymoron) scientists who refuse peer review but simply want their claims accepted because "god"

What exactly are "creationists who accept the scientific method?" If someone rejects the results of the scientific method, in what way do they accept the scientific method?

 

[ChristineM]

What exactly are "creationists who accept the scientific method?" If someone rejects the results of the scientific method, in what way do they accept the scientific method?

Its I very difficult situation for them but they are able to reconcile their belief and facts. I have no idea how but they do.

As @Audie said in her post...

I had two professors, both in chemistry, that I know were creationists.

So what? Good teachers, good researchers.

I know, not quite creationist but i know of several christians with strong god belief who are scientists.

 

[Audie]

What exactly are "creationists who accept the scientific method?" If someone rejects the results of the scientific method, in what way do they accept the scientific method?

I just gave 2 examples from personal experience.