How did the church make a comeback

Pages: 12345... 12
I haven't exactly been sober whilst reading this thread, but, where was the NTS fallacy, darkestfright?
People love to trick themselves into believing that their own personal belief system is based rational logic and science.

But it is impossible; your(any) belief system is based just as much on instinct and emotion as logic.
Your argument seems to imply that my disbelief is purely based on logic and science but then go on to suggest that it must also involve instinct and emotion. That really says nothing as in the end my belief if still my belief.

Nothing can be proven and at some point you need to accept certain ideas as true or you will not be able to continue.
The great paradox nothing can be proven only disproven … prove it. You also have to accept that at some point certain ideas are false or you will not be able to continue. Again you are not really saying much here.

My best decisions in life have been based on instinct and emotion--I did not marry for a logical reason I married my wife based on emotion.
Why marry in the first place?

When someone chooses to accept the concept of God they do so based on emotion or instinct.
But above you are suggesting that it all involves emotion and instinct, this would include someone’s rejection of the concept of God. So you are not say much still.

If God could be proven religion would cease to exist; because when something is testable it falls into the realm of science. God/god can neither be proven nor disproved.
That would depend on what definition of religion you are going by. As to go being neither provable is disprovable, I would agree and as such my assertion that He doesn’t exist is equally as valid as someone’s assertion that He does. And cannot be proven or disproven.

When someone denies the existence of god they do it on instinct because it is irrational to assume something does not exist simply because you have not observed it.
My disbelief in God comes from many sources not least of which where unsatisfactory answer to questions posed to the people that should know. What I see in the world is pain and misery. Some of it is through disease and famine, some via war/conflict based on different versions of god. This leaves me questioning the nature of God and the only conclusion I came to (with the lack of help from ‘the church’) is: If He does exist, he is either; vengeful and vindictive, lazy and couldn’t give a sh.., or is impotent. None of these deserve reverence and worship. Therefore I go with He doesn’t exist.
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@Cheraphy

I made three strawman arguments--a rhetorical statement will often contain strawman arguments, but it is another persons responsibility to say I have not made that argument and I will not defend it.

I made one true Scotsman argument -- anyone has the right to feel superior.

Grey Wolf in the above clearly states why he holds in his beliefs:
My disbelief in God comes from many sources not least of which where unsatisfactory answer to questions posed to the people that should know. What I see in the world is pain and misery. Some of it is through disease and famine, some via war/conflict based on different versions of god. This leaves me questioning the nature of God and the only conclusion I came to (with the lack of help from ‘the church’) is: If He does exist, he is either; vengeful and vindictive, lazy and couldn’t give a sh.., or is impotent. None of these deserve reverence and worship. Therefore I go with He doesn’t exist


I could attack them but why?









Last edited on
I could attack them but why?


Try your arguments in a Philosophy course at university - there are first year papers in that subject AFAIK.
Why does anyone still follow the Christian religion? There is no need for religion anymore, except for the weak. I've seen atheists and agnostics turn to religion time and time again right when their life gets hard. The organization is riddled with corruption and has become more segregated than the the American political parties. People claim we need religion for good moral teaching, but we don't.

I see not a single good reason to believe in old fairy tales unless you are too weak to deal with the struggles of life. And I've been on both sides. I was raised in a very Christian family and my family is still very religious.
@ResidentBiscuit
After reading the first two sentences I deduced sarcasm. Apparently I was wrong.

There is no need for religion anymore, except for the weak.

I might do you good to see how weak you are. Though I am hardly someone to preach about that.
I'm strong enough to not some divine being to hold accountable all things that go wrong with my life. I live with responsibility on myself, be it good or bad. Drives me crazy when people say "Thank god for X". Why not thank yourself? Or the actual people involved in said event? Something goes bad in my life, I figure out why it happened and I deal with it. I don't look up to some bearded man in the sky for help. That's just as silly as believing Santa will bring me presents at the end of the month.
That's just as silly as believing Santa will bring me presents at the end of the month.
Now you have gone too far!
I'm glad we a have an overman amongst us. I sincerely hope you never stop feeling that way.

To the list of speculations why religion is declining in popularity I'd like to add one more - the illusion of control.
It's worked out so far. If being confident and having a fair amount of self respect is a bad thing, then so be it. I've been through bad times and good times and sure enough my philosophy with life has worked. Now if you want to sit there and pray that god will help you through everyday, that's your choice.
You do realize that the Catholic Church of the middle ages was ruled by a bunch of corrupt people who only used "religion" (although everything they did cannot be justified with what the Bible says) as cover for their actions.


The problem I have with referring to the fact that the mistakes was made by the catholic church of the middle ages is the following:

- All modern churches are derived from/based on the catholic church of the middle ages.

- It is convenient to place blame on a group that existed long ago relative to any modern human - but what if there was a person (strange type) that lived for thousands of years. To him the church is still the same business just different sign boards.

- Will our future descendants one day refer to the church of our time as the church of the late middle ages with all it's issues.


Issues have occurred back then and have been occurring all the time till now.
The issues of the present are not as blatant of those of the past.
To list one new issue is the churches stance of gay rights.
I personally have nothing against gays, but find an issue with this bunch now claiming the same when it is actually written in black and white in the bible that such acts are wrong.

Surely their divine inspired message shouldn't be adjusted for modern times.
Whatever made gay relationships wrong in the past (according to the bible) should still be relevant in todays times.
Or is it their hypocritical nature surfacing again - they realized that many gay people are very rich and influential ...

Hence the term hypocrit seems to fit them very well here.

They conveniantly change the bible as it suits them - note older versions of bible containing the word hell while modern ones don't.
Apparently they discovered that hell was never a word/term referenced in those times as was made to believe when christianity was spread.
How much more is going to be changed as time goes on, and at point point do people stop being sentimental about believing in them???
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


The bible is such a cheerful read. I remember gleefully pointing out to my sister when we went to Sunday School a passage about someone drinking his own piss.

Aha! Here it is: (Isaiah 36:12)
But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?


Ah, the joys of youth.
Whatever made gay relationships wrong in the past (according to the bible) should still be relevant in todays times.


What made them wrong in the past was the common attitude of society. Society doesn't follow religion; religion follows society. If the attitude of society towards gay relationships changes, so religion follows.
My so far favorite is (2 Kings 2:23-24)
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
I'm still reading though.

@silly atheism,
For someone who claims to be wise enough to see the "truth", you lack understanding of what or why religion is. I heard a great quote a few years ago. Crudely translated it said
Fools do no harm because they know not to touch what they don't understand. Intellectuals do no harm because they know what should not be touched. Half-intellectuals do harm because they always see a solution and destroy the old to get to it.
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
My favorite is 1 Corinthians 13:11:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A11&version=KJV


11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


I always quote that when Christians ask me why I gave up the religion.
Last edited on
My so far favorite is (2 Kings 2:23-24)


It's even more comical in the King James Version. "Go up, thou bald head!"
closed account (3qX21hU5)
It's quite funny when I read posts like residentbiscuts post
Why does anyone still follow the Christian religion? There is no need for religion anymore, except for the weak. I've seen atheists and agnostics turn to religion time and time again right when their life gets hard. The organization is riddled with corruption and has become more segregated than the the American political parties. People claim we need religion for good moral teaching, but we don't


Why should it matter to you what other people believe in? I'm a devote christian and that shouldn't effect your life at all. Its a choice for me to make not someone else make for me. I don't judge other people for being atheist or having a different religion and I expect to be treated the same.

There are corrupt people in all walks of life, just because there is corrupt priests or Christians means that everyone should stop believing? Religion is not for the weak it takes a great deal of strength to have faith in something. I also believe you could use some religion to help your good moral teaching but that choice is up to you.

Last edited on
What made them wrong in the past was the common attitude of society. Society doesn't follow religion; religion follows society. If the attitude of society towards gay relationships changes, so religion follows.


This is true, but it is also what baffles me most about Christian/Catholic based denominations. They speak as though they have absolute truths, but their truths constantly change with the flux of society. Given their track record, how can anyone take them seriously anymore?

But I think that's what OP was trying to say.
Last edited on
Ha religion teaching good morals. That's a funny one. I'm actually much more tolerant and open minded than all the Christians I know. But I really don't care what you believe, I just stated my opinion because this thread was here and you Christians felt the need to dispute everything. You can stick to blind faith. Ill stick to facts.
If the earth is not flat, then why can't we see what supports it?
Pages: 12345... 12