Considering all of the conversations with atheists I have had recently, I thought I would bring back to light the fallacy of this common argument.
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
This is a quote that is found often on the lips of atheists these days. It can be summed up this way: “I don’t have to take the time to reject Christ any more than you have to take the time to reject all the millions of gods that are out there. It just happens by default. The justification for my atheism is the same as yours with respect to your rejection of all the other possible gods.”
While I understand the spirit of this quote, I think it fails to understand some of the very basic beliefs that Christians are claiming about their God as opposed to “the other possible gods.”
I have heard my favorite atheist, Christopher Hitchens, compare belief in Jesus to belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause. This is really saying the same thing using different illustrations. But he also likes the “I don’t believe in other gods thing too.” As he once said, “No, I don’t believe in Yahweh. I don’t believe in Hercules either.”
As effective as these types of implicit appeals of association might be emotionally, they miss the mark completely. All assume a parallel that is simply not present when the claims are understood and the evidence is considered.
Take the “I don’t believe in Hercules” argument for example. This assumes a parallel between belief in Christ and a belief in any one of the millions of gods that have ever existed, especially those who belonged to a system of religion which espoused many gods (polytheism). These type of systems are represented by ancient Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman cultures (as well as others today). There is really not too much difference between the basic philosophical structure of each.
There are two primary reasons why I believe drawing parallels between belief in these gods (or Tooth Fairies) are misleading:
1. The type of belief
Whether we are speaking of this from a political or rural position, the commitment to religious pantheonism (note: not “pantheism”), especially of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman world, don’t have as committed adherents as we often think. The religious culture that Christianity demands needs to be distinguished here. People did not really believe in Shu, Nut, Hercules, Baal, Wearisomu, Enki, Utu, Diana, and the like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh. Their belief was more of a social convention which included all the pressures that such a system demanded. Their gods were more “faddish” than anything else. Their existence was rather fluid, changing and even morphing into other gods and sometimes moralistic ideals such as “justice” and “reason.” This is why the Caesers could so easily deify themselves and expect people to jump on the bandwagon. Did these people really suddenly believe Caeser was a god? If so, what does this say about the type of belief they had? Both in the philosophical world of the day and among the laity, “belief” as we think of it, was not present.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that we have “faddish” Christianity today where people follow the tide of the culture in believing in Christ the same way that people believed in these ancient gods. In this social folk religion, there is a parallel. But the basis for belief in these other gods was founded on social convention, not philosophical, rational, and historic necessity as is the case with Christianity. Christianity exists not because of rural pragmatism, but because of historic events.
2. The type of god
More importantly, the gods of these pantheons were/are not really gods in the proper sense. In order to call them such is a misunderstanding of what “god” means. In other words, they were functional deities who carried a role that was expedient to the life and happiness of the people. They were the gods of rain, sun, crops, war, fertility, and the like. They were the “go-to” immanent forces who had no transcendence or ultimate creative power. They were more like superheroes from the Justice League than gods. In this system, human beings and these gods shared the same type of life, having similar problems and frustrations. The deistic philosophy of the people did not center around a “universe” in which one god was controlling and holding all things together, but a “multiverse” where each god was responsible for his or her respective career. Therefore, these gods would have much more in common with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause than they would with the God that the Bible describes.
While most systems had a “top dog,” if you will (Zeus, Re, Enlil, Marduk, etc), these were not thought of as the ultimate creators of all things who, out of necessity, transcend space and time. They were simply really, really powerful beings that happened to be caught up in the same world we are. More powerful than us mortals? Yes. But none qualify for the title “God.”
Christianity believes in only one God (monotheism). We believe this not simply because we want to have the most powerful being out of the millions, but out of theological and philosophical necessity. We believe that God created all things out of nothing. We believe that existence necessitates a “first cause” or an “unmoved mover.” This first cause is by definition God. Simply put, whoever started it all (the time, space, matter creation) is the only true God. There cannot be multiple first causers. God, while able to interact and love mankind, must transcend all that we see and know. He must be outside of our universe holding it all together, not simply the most powerful actor in our current play. We are simply talking about two different species here. One that is transcendently holy, both ontologically (who he is in essence) and morally (what he does) and the other which is but a hair’s breath from us.
In the end, the theistic type of God espoused by Christianity cannot be compared to the pantheon of gods of polytheistic religions. It is comparing apples to oranges.
Let’s look at this statement again:
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God. It is a slight of hand to make such a comparison (effective as it may be). People believe in these two completely different things for completely different reasons and, therefore, must reject the two differently. The same arguments used against these gods cannot be used effectively against the Christian God. Once polytheism as a worldview is rejected, all the millions of gods go with it. I don’t have to argue against each, one at a time.
My time is up, but I understand the much needed sequel. While there is a philosophical barrier that does not allow us to equate belief in the Christian God to belief in the myriad of gods in polytheistic systems, this does not mean that the Christian God cannot be compared to the god of Islam. However, if Stephen F Roberts would have said, “When you understand why you dismiss Allah, you will understand why I dismiss Yahweh,” then it would be philosophically correct. The comparison would be in tact and the conversation would not be manipulated into this accept-all-or-nothing resolve. However, it still would not make sense. I do reject Allah and my reasons are very specific. But they are not the same reasons why he rejects Christ.
273 replies to "Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work"
“Now allow me to introduce you to the evil Martin Luther King Jr. He was a religious person and therefore a power hungry monster everything he taught flew in the face of human reasoning.”
Not all religions as equally harmful. Indeed some are innocuous. e.g. Hinduism, which MLK, despite his Christian heritage, leaned upon heavily to bring about equality for African Americans. In Hinduism, unlike the Abrahamic religions, there’s no notion of apostasy, heresy, blasphemy or other Iron Age nonsense. Consequently we’re not witnessing a spate of people blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces, throwing acid in the faces of girls attempting to acquire an education, refusing to recognize marriage of same-sex couples or placing the interests of a clump of 100-200 cells over that of an 18 yr old in the name of Hinduism.
Funny thing maroon, atheist socialists did all those same evil things, or things similar to them.
But now we get the typical atheist protest – “oh, the atheistic regimes only did evil stuff because they were acting like RELIGIONS! See? That explains everything!”
Nice try, but no dice.
The only way you can call Pol Pot “religious” is if you redefine religion into basically “anything I don’t like.”
And if you’re going to define religion that broadly, the word loses all meaning whatsoever.
I might as well say that the Christians in the Crusades and the Inquisition only behaved poorly because they were acting like atheists.
See maroon? Two can play at this stupid game.
Oh, and I did miss the reference to the Eisner study since it was hidden on the image of an axe and hard to see. I’m curious how he derived his murder rates though. A quote from a paper that engages Eisner’s data somewhat:
“Homicides estimates based on historical sources are subject to various limitations: An unknown number of cases may not have come to the attention of the authorities; the likelihood of dying from trauma changed over time as medical treatment improved; population estimates are often inaccurate; and often – particularly for periods before 1800 we only have estimates for limited geographic regions or cities, making generalisations to whole countries difficult.”
How much of the decrease in death by homicide was simply due to better medical treatment?
The graph about war is hopelessly inadequate. Because it only starts tracking since the 1940s.
This is a favorite tactic of people who deny global warming. They pick a small portion of the global warming timeline where global temperatures have stayed stable or decreased locally, ignoring the fact that temperatures have been rising steadily for two centuries. You’d be able to see the rise in temperatures in the graph, if the graph scrolled back. But since the graph is zoomed in on only a small slice of the timeline, you can manipulate it to make it LOOK like temperatures are down.
The same trick is being pulled with this war graph of yours. 1940 was World War II – a massive conflict primarily pushed by a pair of atheists who held religion in contempt. After that, we had the artificial peace of the Cold War. So trying to pinpoint a trend from the latter half of the 20th century alone is a hopeless business.
Show me a timeline starting in the year 1200 and going to the present and I’ll take notice.
“Funny thing maroon, atheist socialists did all those same evil things, or things similar to them.”
Ah, but they didn’t do them in the name of reason and rational thought. They did them in the name of dogma. Dogma is the thread that runs through religions, authoritarianism, nationalism and their corresponding xenophobia.
“See maroon? Two can play at this stupid game.”
Your resorting to ad hominem is telling of your standing in this discussion.
Dogma is not a religious concept. It is a human concept.
The mere presence of dogma is not evidence of the presence of religion.
“Show me a timeline starting in the year 1200 and going to the present and I’ll take notice.”
Hang on a sec: *you* were the one who initially made the claim that the world has become MORE violent. Where are *your* independent sources (as imperfect as they might also be)?
“Dogma is not a religious concept. It is a human concept.”
Oh boy…
Yes, I’m aware of where the WORD came from.
I was talking about the concept itself.
I would like to put in some input as a religious studies major here. Dogma (or discourse) is not something that is unique solely to religion. For instance, the Constitution can be looked on as the dogma or discourse of America. Even the NFL and the NHL have dogmas running them. What is unique to religion is a TRANSCENDENT discourse or dogma. That is, a dogma that transcends human rationale and makes claims of absolute truth.
“Dogma (or discourse) is not something that is unique solely to religion.”
Completely agree. Also, not all religious dogmas are equally pernicious (e.g. Hinduism, Jainism, very liberal strands of Judaism and Christianity).
The arc of history tells a story of religious dogmas pushed ever closer to the sidelines in favor of rational, evidence-based ways of looking at the world and *not* making claims of absolute truth.
Who says religious dogmas are not rational?
Seth R. said: “Who says religious dogmas are not rational?”
Merriam Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational
Nice try, but no.
Who says that definition doesn’t apply to religious ideas and concepts?
Seth R.,
Rational just means that it lacks material evidence to support it. Thus, it transcends and goes beyond what is commonly perceived as reality. Stating that religious beliefs are “irrational” doesn’t mean religious people are delusional. This would be an improper definition of the term.
“Stating that religious beliefs are “irrational” doesn’t mean religious people are delusional.”
newenglandsun:
Suppose I were to tell you that, as part of my morning ritual, when I break a cracker over my oatmeal I believe that doing so turns it into the body of Elvis.
Would you consider me delusional?
You could turn Elvis into a god for all I care. Rational? No. Irrational? Yes. Delusional? It depends. You might be considered a whack job because almost no one does that.
Approaching atheism as a psychological problem rather than a theological problem just might be more effective….
Check out
The Question of God
by Armand Nicholi (hope I got his name right)
He teaches psychaitry at Harvard university.
He points out similariites in developmental issues between Freud and C.S. Lewis (psychological reasons for their atheism) then he compares their statements. He concludes that C.S. Lewis was much healthier than Freud and points to conversion as the reason.
Fascinating book!
Thanks for this Lora. I wonder whether comparing just two individuals is enough to make such a generalization. One could likely pick two others where the comparison would support the opposite conclusion.
PBS has a version you can watch online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/program/complete.html
Lora,
That seems a little bit like Freud’s take on psychology. There’s too few individuals. For some people, giving up on religion might make them more healthy. For instance, the street preachers that tell people they’re going to Hell. And wouldn’t it be nice if Fred Phelps became an anti-theist?
It is a bit like Freud’s psychology–however, the author shows how Freud’s psychology (in some areas) reflects Freud’s own mental illness…..
What if Nietzche’s claim that “God is dead and we have killed him” reflects Nietzche’s early childhood wish for death of his own father?
I like how C.S. Lewis describes God as the Great Iconoclast, continually shattering his limited understanding of God…
Author of The Question of God is one of the most objective writers I have ever read. He shows respect for faith of C.S. Lewis without bashing it in any way.
By the way, the PBS special does not do the book justice.
The Question of God is an excellent book.
I don’t have time to look up the verse from Psalms–
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.
I think Proverbs is clear concerning those who are wise will not waste their time arguing with a fool.
If atheism is a psychological problem, then we are not qualified to “help” them.
Humility and wisdom are necessary foundation for a peaceful life. 🙂
From original post:
While there is a philosophical barrier that does not allow us to equate belief in the Christian God to belief in the myriad of gods in polytheistic systems, this does not mean that the Christian God cannot be compared to the god of Islam. However, if Stephen F Roberts would have said, “When you understand why you dismiss Allah, you will understand why I dismiss Yahweh,” then it would be philosophically correct. The comparison would be in tact and the conversation would not be manipulated into this accept-all-or-nothing resolve. However, it still would not make sense. I do reject Allah and my reasons are very specific. But they are not the same reasons why he rejects Christ.
My response:
In the Middle East, Christians call Yahweh
Allah because that is the Arabic word for God.
Time for the “teacher of theology” to invest time in reading and learning (homework assignment)
Great book I recently finished:
When Religion Becomes Evil
by Charles Kimball.
Lora,
Even still, to say that atheism is a psychological is a bit of a stress. Regardless of whether or not the author of that book is objective or not toward Lewis’s views does not mean he is objective at all. That could just mean he is biased in favor of Lewis.
Again, you still did not answer my question in regard to Fred Phelps. I now would like to throw in Pat Robertson. Again, at the rate you are going at, theism could be considered a psychological illness depending on the people.
Newenglandsun,
Do you really think that those individuals would be any healthier if they gave up religion? I think that those who spew hate will find a reason to spew hate regardless of whether they are “religious” or not. They will find a new religion (classism, racism, bigotry, intellectual snobbery, materialism, etc.). What often gets overlooked is that we are religious people, we seek to find a set of rules that can govern us in a way that elevates us. We want to find that which gives us the greatest satisfaction here, and in many cases it is simply a way to rule over others.
Meanwhile you have Jesus who tells us and pleads with us to understand. He tells us how He designed the world to work and our role in it. He then tells us that if we do exactly 2 things in this world we will find true joy. These two things Matthew 22:37-39.
I would encourage you and maroonblazer to really interact with those two statements.
Chad Douglass,
People have their ways of twisting religion around to suit their purposes. Yes, we are designed to follow rules but this does not mean we are all religious since rules don’t always come from religion.
You missed my point. It is not that the rules always stem from a religion, but rather that we will make rules into our religion. So, let’s say you are atheist. You believe that there is no god anywhere, yet you strictly and devoutly adhere to your new religion of evidentialism. Your views of evidentialism color your views of everything else. It becomes your functional god and you worship it because it provides you with the truth you seek. You have rules for how it works, what it speaks into, and why other people are wrong. This is a religion.
And yes, you are quite right that people have their ways of twisting religion to suit their purposes, which is a common theme of Christians. But I would ask you to take one step further back and see the stem of all of these issues, and that stem is people. People are violent, people twist things for their benefit, people lie, etc. Religious or religion masking as irreligion does not matter. The common thread is that people are involved.
This is why Christ is good news. He came and died for our sins, then rose so that we might have life. We can do and have done nothing to deserve any of this. We consistently do things to the contrary. So, if Christians have harassed and denigrated you, I am sorry that you had those interactions, but I would ask that you keep in mind that they are people as well. See the common problem.
Chad Douglass,
Evidentialism is not a religion. It is a philosophical worldview. It can be a subset with theism, atheism, or agnosticism. Just like not all atheists are materialists.
“So, let’s say you are atheist. You believe that there is no god anywhere, yet you strictly and devoutly adhere to your new religion of evidentialism.”
You’re making a category error by invoking religious terms to describe something that is absent of religion. I think what you’re trying to say is that atheists have simply embraced a different kind of dogma (one that believes in evidence, reasoned argument, substantiating claims with facts, etc).
The big difference however is that atheists are willing to have their minds changed. If Jesus were to descend bodily from on high and present himself to me I would willingly re-embrace Christianity (I’m a former confirmed Catholic). Likewise Mohammed, Vishnu or Zeus.
Correspondingly, what evidence would you need to change your beliefs about the existence of a personal god?
maroonblazer,
You don’t believe in Mohammad? Even non-Muslims like myself believe in Mohammad. Do you also not believe in Aristotle? I think you meant Allah.
Any way, if it were me, I might state it was an hallucination but considering Christianity appears to be a package deal nowadays, I’d rather hope God ain’t real.
“I think you meant Allah.”
Thanks. Long day…
No, you’re defining rational too narrowly. You’re defining it as whatever has been established with empirical evidence. But that’s not all that rational means. It can also encompass hypotheses or theories that have not been proven.
Several old theories of physics have been disproven over the last 50 years. But that did not make those theories irrational.
Maroon, if you’d bothered to read the rest of the thread, you’d know I already addressed the “tinkerbell” argument a while back. It’s one of the dumber atheist arguments out there and simply proves my point that when you take away ridicule and taunting as a tool, atheists really aren’t left with much of a compelling argument.
For instance, Sir Isaac Newton was a passionate student of alchemy and pursued it for quite some time. It was a highly rational inquiry for him, as it was for most of the learned men of science of his day.
It just happened to be wrong. But that didn’t make it irrational.
Likewise, theology has been a highly rational field of inquiry for centuries. Which modern atheists would know if they’d bothered to read any of the great theologians seriously – which most of them haven’t.
maroon, typically online – the atheists are the most strident, dogmatic, and impervious to argument people in the room.
So you can drop the pious act of open-mindedness. You’re not fooling anyone outside your own echo chamber.
“But that’s not all that rational means. It can also encompass hypotheses or theories that have not been proven.”
But those unproven theories need to have a lot of good, objective, reasons as to why they might be true. It doesn’t mean you can make any claim you want and call it ‘rational’.
Plenty of theology does have a lot of good reasons behind it.
The Elvis comparison was trivial and not even remotely apt. Obviously Christianity means much more to world history than Elvis or Tinkerbell ever will.
“For instance, Sir Isaac Newton was a passionate student of alchemy and pursued it for quite some time. It was a highly rational inquiry for him, as it was for most of the learned men of science of his day.
It just happened to be wrong. But that didn’t make it irrational.”
Yes it did. Newton, despite being one of the most brilliant men in history, nevertheless also happened to believe a lot of ridiculous things. In addition to alchemy we can add elixr of life, philosopher’s stone, temple of solomon and atlantis.
OK maroon,
Big Bang Theory.
Rational or not?
“Big Bang Theory.
Rational or not?”
I’m not a cosmologist (are you?) so can’t speak with any authority on the topic, but from what I’ve read, very cursorily, it appears there’s considerable evidence for it, although it’s not without its problems. So yes, rational.
“The Elvis comparison was trivial and not even remotely apt. Obviously Christianity means much more to world history than Elvis or Tinkerbell ever will.”
It’s possible for ideas to have impact on world history and also not be true. Women as second-class citizens had quite an impact on world history. Also slavery.
But if we were to instantly teleport… say… 100 years into the future and find out that the Big Bang theory was actually comically wrong and completely off-base, then you would be willing to use similar expressions of contempt like you just did for Isaac Newton’s alchemy?
It seems that your working definition of rationality is completely worthless.
Because the only way to determine if something is rational or not is to basically know with full assurance that it is in fact true. But that is not the case for any human knowledge we have now. Any one of our modern scientific theories could be overturned in the future by human advance and better information.
So the Big Bang is only rational as long as it appears to be true to you then?
Well, alchemy appeared to be true to Isaac Newton as well. So either you have to concede that Newton’s alchemy was rational because he viewed it that way…
Or you have to concede that possibly all of the ideas you hold are potentially irrational because they have not yet been completely proven.
Which demonstrates the worthlessness of this atheist prattle about rationality fairly neatly. “Rationality” is nothing more than an atheist code word for “ideas I like.” And “irrationality” is nothing more than an atheist code word for “ideas I don’t like.”
“So the Big Bang is only rational as long as it appears to be true to you then?”
No. It’s rationality is derived from the evidence supporting the claim.
Read up on the Scientific Method and you’ll understand more fully. As Keynes said of Newton: “Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians”
@179
Maroon,
In the sentence you quoted there is no category error. Did you mean in a different part of my post? Devout can simply mean to be “Totally committed to a cause or belief”. Religion meanwhile can simply mean “Details of belief as taught or discussed”. No category error is made as those are the definitions of the words.
Now certainly you did not seriously entertain the notion that atheists have enlightened themselves to the point where they are the only ones who “believes in evidence, reasoned argument, substantiating claims with facts, etc.” That would seem extremely arrogant and misplaced in a reasoned argument.
I also enjoy the always fun, well if God would bow to my whims and do what I want Him to do, then I would believe. No you wouldn’t, because you would rationalize and say that you manipulated this being into appearing before you and this being can therefor not be all powerful if subjected to your power. So, this must not have been God. But let’s assume you are even remotely honest with yourself, you are familiar with the Pharisees. These were men waiting for the Messiah and did not believe it when he showed up in their faces. Do not assume that you are any more able to believe when presented with the work of Christ than those who witnessed it first hand.
At what age were you confirmed? Stating that you were a confirmed Catholic is ultimately meaningless without a frame of reference. I was confirmed Catholic, but only because my mom made me do it. I had nothing to do with church for years. But God.
newenglandsun,
I think whether we refer to the “dogma” that Maroon is referring to as evidentialism or something else, I believe we know what I am referencing. I am curious what you meant with this statement though, “Any way, if it were me, I might state it was an hallucination but considering Christianity appears to be a package deal nowadays, I’d rather hope God ain’t real.”
Scientific method– a hypothesis must be tested and one must obtain the same results each time before it can become a theory.
The Big Bang Theory has not been tested–it cannot be tested…therefore it cannot be called a Theory.
Chad Douglass,
With Christianity, not only do you have to accept the existence of God and Jesus as Messiah but everything that comes along with it as well. Constant “looking for demons and Satan on the prowl”, constant “atheists are evil”, constant “help the gays and bisexuals become heterosexuals”, etc.
Lora,
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) states: “the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today” (wikipedia). That the universe is expanding can be observed. What came before it, we don’t know. But this can be hypothesized rationally using the laws of physics without having to appeal to a deity. We know that the universe is expanding now. Fast forward back in time and there was some point in which it wasn’t.
newenglandsun,
Let me correct a couple of notions that you have here. The constant “looking for demons and Satan on the prowl” does not mean that you are literally assuming demons all over the place causing things to happen. “Oh no my car broke down, must be the evil car demon.” That is nonsense. But there are real spiritual forces that work in opposition to the Holy Spirit’s transformation of your heart. Christians are called to resist the temptation of the devil. So if you mean, look at your heart and see if it is in line with Christ’s, then yes, you are called to do that.
The constant “atheists are evil” is a complete misnomer. If we want to define evil as opposed to God, then everyone is evil to some extent or another. One man lived a sinless life in complete obedience to God, Jesus Christ. So, if you want to state it simply, the constant “everyone is evil…but deserving as image bearers of God of mercy, compassion, and love, so strive to be that for them” is difficult, but rewarding.
The “help the gays and bisexuals become heterosexuals” is an odd statement. I didn’t get any incantations, elixirs, pills, or “turn people straight” healing powers…nor do I know anyone else that did. I think this would be better stated as “help everyone realize that we do not measure up to God’s standards, but that through Christ there is a way to pursue these standards that maximizes joy in life.” But if we want to be blunt, why limit it to just the things that you characterize as emotionally invalid. We could state this as a litany of things: help adulterers to be faithful; help gluttons to enjoy food and not worship it; help sexually promiscuous be chaste; help bigots to see the glory of God in His image bearers; etc.
Don’t let Christians who wouldn’t know grace, mercy, or compassion if it bit them in the butt color your view of the work Christ did on the cross. His death covered all our sins.
Chad Douglass,
These things were kind of what I was talking about. The problem with the gay thing though is that the APA warns people to stay away from those claiming that they can clear off these homosexual desires.
The thing with the demons was exactly my point. Resist temptation to fail to tell the gays to be more heterosexual. Again, homosexuality and bisexuality should not be associated with adultery or sexual promiscuity.
And of course, those evil atheists who are encouraging us to be enemies of god by standing up for feminism and LGBT rights. Curse those atheists.
Oh and Chad, I want you to know that I’ve been to one of those “ex-gay” meetings. For Love Won Out. There’s a lot of loving people there. But they’re all misguided. The “cures” they present all deal with constant prayer as well as helping people to conform to stereotypical gender roles. That does not help people become less gay as evidenced by Alan Chambers of Exodus International and John Paulk of Love Won Out.
“Religion meanwhile can simply mean “Details of belief as taught or discussed”.”
Not without redefining “religion”. Here’s an accepted definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion):
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
I possess no set of beliefs regarding the creation of a “superhuman agency”, thus I have no religion.
“I also enjoy the always fun, well if God would bow to my whims and do what I want Him to do, then I would believe. No you wouldn’t,…”
Yes, I would. I don’t know how I can state it more clearly.
“At what age were you confirmed?”
I was 14 and I firmly believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for my sins and ascended into heaven to join his “father”. As I grew older it became more and more difficult to square those claims with the evidence, largely because there was not good evidence.
“No. It’s rationality is derived from the evidence supporting the claim. ”
I got news for you shortstop.
Alchemy was derived from evidence supporting a claim. It just happened to be wrong in light of further evidence that was developed. But the men who studied it were some of the most brilliant minds of the day. They employed the scientific method to the discipline, conducted empirical experiments, and made conclusions based on meticulously observed data.
One of the defining features of modern atheism is it’s appalling ability to underestimate the intellect and discipline of scholarship in the past, and comically overestimate the ability of modern science to present us with unchanging truth.
It’s entirely possible maroon, that in 200 years from now, some short-sided atheist bigot will be sneering about those “magicians” who came up with nonsensical and disproven ideas like “the Big Bang” and so forth. They’ll consider people like YOU just as mystical as you have the arrogance to consider Newton.
Oh, yes, you know so much better than Newton, don’t you maroon? Unlike him, you’re an enlightened rationalist.
The stupidity of modern atheism is only outstripped by its pig-headed arrogance.
To argue the quote in question by claiming the Christian belief system has higher “demands” in order to believe and that the Christian god is different to other gods based on attributes is flawed.
How is this argument not circular reasoning?
Our god is different to other gods because of the attributes the believers have ascribed said god. Therefore our type of god can not be compared to past gods and Stephen Robert’s quote is flawed.
Our religion is different to other religions because the practitioners of said religion have made the system more rigid. Therefore our religion can not be compared to past religions and Stephen Robert’s quote is flawed.
This is an extremely arrogant line of reasoning. Especially how you have seemingly dismissed thousands of religions and gods as irrelevant compared to yours.
It doesn’t matter how much different(superior) you believe your god is or how much different(superior) you believe your religion is.
The analogy here is you claim a supernatural position which you have no evidence to support, just like all other religions and gods before you have done.