Patrick

If you were king of the world, and had an army of atheists at your disposal, what exactly would be the process by which you would eradicate the world's religions?

As a prerequisite, I believe in the trinity, and the full divinity of Christ.

But a lot of people have made the argument that if Jesus wasn't God, we couldn't be saved, or that Christianity is false. I'm curious as to why they think so.

Suppose Christ was an elevated man, or a man who was given divine status. If he died for our sins, living a sinless life, and was resurrected by God, what fundamental difference would there be in the salvation process?

Suppose a Christian apologist were to write a book of apologetics based strictly on the questions YOU asked them. What questions would make up the chapters of the book?

In another way, what are your biggest questions about Christianity that go unanswered, or aren't answered satisfactorily?

According to several recent studies, religious conservatives donate far more to charity than their counterparts, secular liberals. Even when adjusted for income, and even when tithing to churches is completely removed from the equation, the poorer religious conservatives even gave more than the richer secular liberals.

One example of a study like this is from the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur Brooks. He named four groups of people: religious conservatives, secular conservatives, religious liberals, and secular liberals. Guess how they ranked in terms of their charitability?

1) Religious conservatives

2) Religious liberals

3) Secular conservatives

4) Secular liberals

Why do you suppose that the people who don't believe in any kind of higher power to help us, and that humans are solely responsible for taking care of other humans, are less charitable than people who believe God cares for everyone?

And why do you like or respect them?

I, as a Christian, enjoy listening to and reading the books and speeches of Christopher Hitchens. I think he's very witty, and very smart, and this all comes off in his critiques of religion. Of course I disagree with practically everything he says, but it's difficult to question the man's talent at getting his point across in an articulate way.

Who would argue the affirmative (that God existed), and who the negative (that God does not exist)?

Keep in mind that, since we're using our imaginations, you can pick people who are dead, from all time periods or religions.

Personally, I don't. But I'm interested in what everyone else thinks.

If you are an atheist or other non-Christian, you are welcome to answer, but do so within the context of how you think the Bible should best be interpreted. Please don't come in here and say, "There is no torture because Hell doesn't exist," or something to that effect.

Consider how many deaths have been caused by secular, totalitarian governments, either brands of fascism or communism. Four men (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao) have been responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people, which is more people than religion has managed to kill in the past two thousand years...in a single century.

Yet, why don't you flood all of the message boards about communism and argue against this with the same vigor? You spend so much time criticising religion as some kind of mind virus that controls people (curse them for being so happy, being largely non-violent, and sometimes calling people bad names), and yet don't crusade against things that actually are doing real, demonstrateable damage.

Why is this?

For example, I have a dear friend who does a lot of work in Africa. She recounted a story to me once that she was working in a church, and there was a woman there who had been deaf and mute for most of her life. She said that as she prayed over the woman to receive her hearing and speech, she immediately began to hear and make vocalizations, and my friend watched her speak her first word in twenty years. She told me that she was speaking just like a child does when they first learn to talk.

Now, you obviously don't believe this was an act of divine intervention. So how do you interpret this story?

- Is it a lie?

- Is there some other factor in play here?

- Are there other stories of someone simultaneously receiving the ability to speak and hear after twenty years that have nothing to do with prayer?

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone. But speaking as a metalhead myself (though a Christian one), I have noticed that many of the people I have talked to who enjoy metal, or at metal shows themselves, tend to take a lax view of religion at best, and are ardently atheistic at worst.

If this has been your experience, as it has been mine, why do you think this is the case?

1) There is virtually no scholarly support for the idea. It has been effectively dead in the field of scholarship for practically a century. Holding the view that Jesus was a myth in modern day historical studies is rather like holding to the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old in the field of geology.

Wait, I take that back. There are actually a significant number of real geologists who affirm such a position. Try the belief that the sun revolves around the earth.

2) There are numerous accounts of Jesus having existed that are not representative of the mythos genre of literature. Even putting aside the four Gospels, we have one and a half attestations from Josephus, a very important attestation from Tacitus, and several others that all affirm that he was a historical figure. The fact that they are not contemporary means nothing, as historians don't immediately discount documents for not being contemporary.

So, atheists...Why do you say he didn't exist?

Here, we have two examples of worldviews:

1) The idea that the universe is all there is, and only what we can measure and observe is real.

2) The idea that this universe is not all there is, and that there is an entirely different realm that is more than what we can see, touch, taste, or observe and measure.

So which perspective is more close-minded? Why?

Keep in mind that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be. So which premise in this argument falls flat?

The following argument is Alvin Plantiga's version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.

1 There is a possible world where maximal greatness is exemplified.

2 There is some possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great (from premise 1).

3 Necessarily, a being that is maximally great is maximally excellent in every possible world (by definition).

4 Necessarily, a being that is maximally excellent in every possible world is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in every possible world (by definition).

5 Therefore, there is in our world and in every world a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect (from premises 1, 2, and 3).

Atheists seem to always stress the importance of believing in evolution, but as far as I can tell, my lack of belief in it is not effecting me in any negative ways. My disregard for one idea of science doesn't appear to be detrimental in any way.

Perhaps I'm not seeing things clearly.

Are there any negative consequences to being a creationist, apart from potentially being factually incorrect? Will I be unable to life a fulfilling life without believing in evolution?