Why I might just abandon Christianity

[Platypus20]

We would probably all get along easier if we just did that, just abandoned our religions.

I've been feeling like my Christian faith causes harm, and I'm tired of trying to rationalise why there's so much barbarism in the Bible. I'm tired of it. If a God did exist, why would he be so sadistic?

I think the biggest reason I haven't abandoned it already is because of my family. I think they would just disown me. That's another reason I've learned to dislike religion, it's from seeing how many parents are willing to disown their own children for not following it. It all just feels so wrong. A god wouldn't make humans feel this way.

Starting today, I'm giving up on Christianity. I hope other religious people who read this feel inspired to do the same.

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Either way, guard your weed.

Lol, no need at Glastonbury. Not even from them :)

It's weird to explain but Glastonbury is unlike ANY other place or even festival. I don't know why it is, but it is. It's just become that way.

I've been to the Electric Forest. The first few Lollapalooza tours before that. Other than that it's been just concerts, not festivals.

Bonaroo is just down the road a bit. I should really go one year.

[Bamford]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Bamford:

Its like you didn't read the link.

No surprise, as there was never any intellectual basis for new atheism at all.
https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/sam-harris-not-much-of-a-neuroscientist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyW7CsbFuQs

You don't even understand your own argument. This is classic thread! 😝

You didn't even understand the link, you brought up fallacies, you don't even understand their limitations, its telling, and has been a hallmark of the shallow thought of new atheism, which only thrived due to an echo chamber, which you see them recreating again as they fail more and more, Sam Harris retreating from twitter is just the most prominent example, when really he was laughed off of there.

[Bamford]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Bamford:

christianity was implicit.

The majority of the Founding Fathers actually did not identify as Christians, they were Deists.

"It does me no harm should my neighbor believe in many gods or no god at all. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" - Ben Franklin

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." Ben again, love that grumpy old geezer!

Nope, Christianity was implicit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlsBx_dob7o

and now you have the new progressive Taliban desecrating grave monuments. You don't know history, and only attempt to erase it.

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

You don't even understand your own argument. This is classic thread! 😝

You didn't even understand the link, you brought up fallacies, you don't even understand their limitations, its telling, and has been a hallmark of the shallow thought of new atheism, which only thrived due to an echo chamber, which you see them recreating again as they fail more and more, Sam Harris retreating from twitter is just the most prominent example, when really he was laughed off of there.

The only argument you made was "slippery slope". Nothing else to mitigate. It's a fallacy. 😝😝🤣😆

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

The majority of the Founding Fathers actually did not identify as Christians, they were Deists.

"It does me no harm should my neighbor believe in many gods or no god at all. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" - Ben Franklin

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." Ben again, love that grumpy old geezer!

and now you have the new progressive Taliban desecrating grave monuments. You don't know history, and only attempt to erase it.

No, it isn't implicit. You can't retroactively say something is what it isn't.

The text of The Constitution was very carefully considered. If they wanted to imply something, they would have simply said so.

🙄

[Bamford]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Bamford:

You didn't even understand the link, you brought up fallacies, you don't even understand their limitations, its telling, and has been a hallmark of the shallow thought of new atheism, which only thrived due to an echo chamber, which you see them recreating again as they fail more and more, Sam Harris retreating from twitter is just the most prominent example, when really he was laughed off of there.

The only argument you made was "slippery slope". Nothing else to mitigate. It's a fallacy. 😝😝🤣😆

And you still don't get that citing "fallacy" like some reddit atheist doesn't make you right. It never did, and its embarrassing for such types.

[Bamford]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Bamford:

and now you have the new progressive Taliban desecrating grave monuments. You don't know history, and only attempt to erase it.

No, it isn't implicit. You can't retroactively say something is what it isn't.

The text of The Constitution was very carefully considered. If they wanted to imply something, they would have simply said so.

🙄

Just the hatchling again, no, not everything was stated as they assumed citizens of good christian character, and male at that. You have to even pretend not to understand your own progressive critique to take that position, simply incredible.

Its just as Adam Smith assumed a moral christian society where only production would cross borders, not modern floods of human capital.

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

The only argument you made was "slippery slope". Nothing else to mitigate. It's a fallacy. 😝😝🤣😆

And you still don't get that citing "fallacy" like some reddit atheist doesn't make you right. It never did, and its embarrassing for such types.

I'm not the one who called it 'The Slippery Slope Fallacy', that's simply what it is. It's poor logic. Don't use it.

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

No, it isn't implicit. You can't retroactively say something is what it isn't.

The text of The Constitution was very carefully considered. If they wanted to imply something, they would have simply said so.

🙄

Just the hatchling again, no, not everything was stated as they assumed citizens of good christian character, and male at that. You have to even pretend not to understand your own progressive critique to take that position, simply incredible.

Its just as Adam Smith assumed a moral christian society where only production would cross borders, not modern floods of human capital.

Is that why The Constitution violates 8 of the 10 Commandments? 😆

[Bamford]

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Bamford:

Just the hatchling again, no, not everything was stated as they assumed citizens of good christian character, and male at that. You have to even pretend not to understand your own progressive critique to take that position, simply incredible.

Its just as Adam Smith assumed a moral christian society where only production would cross borders, not modern floods of human capital.

Is that why The Constitution violates 8 of the 10 Commandments? 😆

Don't insult everyones intelligence, they were passed at the time when religion was the default thing, by their understanding not the reddit atheist understanding it was compliant with their religious teachings.

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Bamford:

And you still don't get that citing "fallacy" like some reddit atheist doesn't make you right. It never did, and its embarrassing for such types.

I'm not the one who called it 'The Slippery Slope Fallacy', that's simply what it is. It's poor logic. Don't use it.

You refuse to understand, its common standard leftist cope mechanism when cornered, go hatchling, tactical nihliism, or pretend not to understand the simplest things so you can avoid taking your loss seriously.

[Fajita Jim]

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Is that why The Constitution violates 8 of the 10 Commandments? 😆

Don't insult everyones intelligence, they were passed at the time when religion was the default thing, by their understanding not the reddit atheist understanding it was compliant with their religious teachings.

Do me a favor. Google "The Jefferson Bible".
😆

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

I'm not the one who called it 'The Slippery Slope Fallacy', that's simply what it is. It's poor logic. Don't use it.

You refuse to understand,

You started to make a point, but then just went on flapping that jowl.

[Shadow]

Arianism was the real and original Christianity that rejected the Trinity which calls Jesus son of God. Arianism rejected rejected the idea of a human (Jesus) being a son of a God. But Arianism died sadly.

[apathy]

Originally posted by mai72:

4. Ah, the old Catholics aren't real Christians. Such a pathetic statement. If you took Catholicism out of Christianity, Islam would be the major religion. The reason Catholics have had a bad past and reputation is because they wielded all the power. They are Christian. You can't just pick and choose who is a Christian. That is a pathetic excuse and you are cherry-picking.

To be fair, the Catholics don't really follow the whole "love thy enemy" teaching, and if you don't follow Christ's most important teachings then why call yourself a follower? They murdered more non-orthodox Christians than the enemies of Christianity could ever hope to, when consolidating their power across Europe.

They genocided the Cathar Christians during the Albigensian Crusade, its where the infamous phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out." originates from. One can argue Catholics are Christian in name only, they worshipped the Pope and his power, not some outsider force called 'God' or whatever.

Originally posted by Midori:

Sounds cool. That's one of the biggest parts that irk me about Christianity, the Trinity sounds like a confusing esoterical mess that puts God in a human body which doesn't make much sense if you believe God is a boundless power.

The whole "I need to be born human" motive is questionable, when you think about it, since the angels can appear as human without needing to impregnate a mortal Jewish woman.

This is the same god that loves you so much he created hell to show what happens to those who refuse his advances. Cosmic entity logic at its finest.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by Bamford:

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

You don't even understand your own argument. This is classic thread! 😝

You didn't even understand the link, you brought up fallacies, you don't even understand their limitations, its telling, and has been a hallmark of the shallow thought of new atheism, which only thrived due to an echo chamber, which you see them recreating again as they fail more and more, Sam Harris retreating from twitter is just the most prominent example, when really he was laughed off of there.

Cool, then demosntrate your evidence as to why instead of just asserting and dismissing.

That's how reality works - you need to show HOW with EVIDENCE.

And this strawman of "new atheism". Come on now, look outside your borders. Here in the rest of the world we haven't had much religion in Britain for decades. It's very common for many countries to have high normal amounts of atheism or secular beliefs.

[Talby]

Originally posted by apathy:

Originally posted by mai72:

4. Ah, the old Catholics aren't real Christians. Such a pathetic statement. If you took Catholicism out of Christianity, Islam would be the major religion. The reason Catholics have had a bad past and reputation is because they wielded all the power. They are Christian. You can't just pick and choose who is a Christian. That is a pathetic excuse and you are cherry-picking.

To be fair, the Catholics don't really follow the whole "love thy enemy" teaching, and if you don't follow Christ's most important teachings then why call yourself a follower? They murdered more non-orthodox Christians than the enemies of Christianity could ever hope to, when consolidating their power across Europe.

They genocided the Cathar Christians during the Albigensian Crusade, its where the infamous phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out." originates from. One can argue Catholics are Christian in name only, they worshipped the Pope and his power, not some outsider force called 'God' or whatever.

Originally posted by Midori:

Sounds cool. That's one of the biggest parts that irk me about Christianity, the Trinity sounds like a confusing esoterical mess that puts God in a human body which doesn't make much sense if you believe God is a boundless power.

The whole "I need to be born human" motive is questionable, when you think about it, since the angels can appear as human without needing to impregnate a mortal Jewish woman.

This is the same god that loves you so much he created hell to show what happens to those who refuse his advances. Cosmic entity logic at its finest.

Wasn't that the revenge for the ottoman empire's assault on Christianity that started around 600AD?

Good grief, for people who want to change history, you sure do suck at it...