Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Living in the UK it's quite difficult to actually have theological discussion in public. After reading The God Delusion in 2006 I didn't believe it was possible that some of the characters that Dawkins described could really exist. So I joined the Richard Dawkins Forum (RDF) and soon found that the type of theists Dawkins describes do inhabit the Internet in a big way. I don't think one can completly extrapolate from the self selecting audience on a forum and the real world, but on forums one does tend to get some serious nut jobs who are so bound up in their faith they have lost almost all ability to see and interact with the real world.

There is no question that not just the Internet, but the world in general, is full of fundamentalist, ideological thinkers who cannot make fine distinctions, and see everything in black and white.  It's frustrating as a Christian to see my faith so populated with people who just don't know how to think.  Those fundamentalist thinkers (Christian variety) will scream that Jesus is the Prince of Peace and that God is love because the Bible says so, and if you don't believe that, you are going to hell and deserve to be killed. It's only a few steps away from radical Islam (the most dangerous of all fundamentalist world views).  It's disappointing.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

However, if you are a Christian Pastor, you should know that your life, and your belief in the after life revolves around that Christianity and by default, your life should be guided and defined by it. As for politics, Jesus says to "give no thought for the morrow" and "do not resist the evil of others". It should be anathema for you to even consider a future politician and equally abhorrent to watch Christian Politicians swear an oath to their office.

It's a little curious to hear an atheist tell me what my life should be like as a Christian, but suffice it to say that the teachings of Jesus that impact me the most are the ones that tell me to love one another as he loved, to forgive (and you will be forgiven), to give (and it will be given to you), to not judge (and you will not be judged), and to not condemn (and you will not be condemned).  I vote because I think it is everyone's duty to be involved in their society, but I don't talk about politics in any teachings/sermons in my congregation.  I leave it up to them to decide for whom they should vote. I've found that it makes very little difference in my daily life which party is in power. 

[Gawen]

Selecting what teachings you would adhere to and throw away the others makes you no different than any other so-called Christian in my mind. This is not meant to be antagonistic in any means. These are the problems and potential hypocrisies you must decide to work out and help out those under your auspices as well.

And, I am known at work as the guy to go to for scripture when all the other co-worker 'believers' have questions of their own religion and a small part of Islam. It is not so curious or uncanny to me at all. I've known more atheists that know more of the Bible (and in context) than the vast majority of 'Christians' I've ever known. Of course I chalk it up to a willingness to explore and apply critical thinking toward Biblical criticism and history, whereas Christians do not...or, in all probability, they would not be a Christian.

As for politics,

I vote because I think it is everyone's duty to be involved in their society...

I think Jesus said in Matt "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"....and "give no thought for the morrow" for two examples. What I did not know is that Jesus taught civic duty in anything other than the way to gain salvation.

How one reconciles the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul would indeed be a daunting task...without being able to cherry pick the stuff one deems as good. With such an ambiguously written guide for life such as the Bible, I'm so very glad I am not a Christian.

[Whitney]

I'm not 99.99% in agreement with most Christians....agreeing on one aspect of a diverse topic is not anything approaching actual agreement.

Thankfully most Christians don't actually believe most of the stuff in the bible and have a strong tendency to take the good and reject the bad so they are still okay to hang out with. But I sure do wish they'd tell their loudmouth fundamentalist brothers to shut the hell up.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Selecting what teachings you would adhere to and throw away the others makes you no different than any other so-called Christian in my mind. This is not meant to be antagonistic in any means. These are the problems and potential hypocrisies you must decide to work out and help out those under your auspices as well.

The "scriptures" were selected for us many years ago.  There is nothing that prevents me from selecting differently, based upon my own personal experience.  Scripture is not as big an issue for me as many Christians I know. Jesus never said that he would leave us a perfect book with all the answers.  He said that he would leave his spirit.  That's more important to me than any scripture.

[wildfire_emissary]

99.9% in agreement for the  non-existence of gods only but not in agreement with everything that can be attributable to the bible or god. Seems legit.

[Tank]

You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus.  He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational. 

For example?

If a person has a religious experience involving Jesus which is powerful enough to convince that person that he/she had encountered Jesus (like it or not, such experiences occur), then that person has a reason for believing in Jesus. Since he/she has had no such experience with Zeus or Thor or Baal, he/she has a reason, based in personal experience, for believing in Jesus but not in Zeus or Thor or Baal.  If you have personally experienced X, you have some basis for believing that X exists, and therefore are not irrational for having that belief.  You may interpret that experience differently than another observer, but you are not just founding your belief on a holy book or what someone else has told you. You have had some personal experience that forms the foundation of your belief in one thing, whereas you may not have any such basis for a belief in something else. 

Sorry but I don't buy this (what a surprise ).

Religious visions happened before Jesus arrived and still happen to people who have no idea Jesus exists, eg isolated tribes in the Amazon basin and the Congo. Now if there were multiple examples of common experiences coming out of unpolluted sources we could say there was some evidence for a common cause, but one would still have to establish that the cause was supernatural before one could attribute deistic intent.

If a Muslim has a religious vision they will attribute that to Allah. Each visionary will attribute their personal vision to their particular version of god. So if personal religious experiences were to share a common cause all visions would be inspired to extol the virtues of a particular deity. Thus ALL visions would be attributable for example to say Allah. But they are not are they? So what we see happening here is personal preferential interpretation of a totally subjective experience, with no commonality except that influenced by the individual's personal biases induced by education and/or culture.

If one had a 'vision' would one admit to having hallucinations, which would make people worry about one, or would one claim a spiritual vision that would enhance one's position in ones societal group? I would say the latter. What is a vision other than a hallucination or dream? Before we gained some understanding of the purpose and operation of the brain we had no alternative but to posit an external influence that created visions (hallucinations or dreams). We now know that an external influence is not needed. We understand the operation of the brain sufficiently to understand that chemical imbalances, physical structure and injury can cause extreme visions.

So having a vision may convince the individual that have experience god, but that interpretation isn't rally valid as simpler explanations exist that do not require the existence of an interventionist deity.

[Stevil]

Jesus never said that he would leave us a perfect book with all the answers.  He said that he would leave his spirit.  That's more important to me than any scripture.

So you make stuff up based on how you feel on the inside? You read your own feelings, you use your reasoning and critical thinking to view the world?
Maybe you are not so different to an Atheist.

[Tank]

Could you please firstly define what you mean by 'rational' in this case and how it differs, if it does, from 'meaningful'?

I really don't see how any religious philosophy can be rational ???, and I'm not talking about "rational" in the Pascal's Wager sense.

"Rational" simply means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. If there is a "reason" for believing in something, and one's thought process in arriving at the belief generally follows the rules of logic, it's rational. To tie it in with "meaningful", a person may have a "meaningful" religious experience that convinces that person that Jesus is "alive" in some manner.  Then that person may examine some ancient historical documents and find some evidence that Jesus was historical.  The combination of these two factors in a logical manner can give rise to a belief that the historical Jesus was who Christianity has claimed - the son of God.  Since that faith is based on both personal experience and historical analysis, it is not irrational, even though it may not convince anyone else. 

But personal experience is subjective and history is questionable so faith on that basis is irrational isn't it? One would not buy a second hand car based on a dream and that had no service history and an odometer reading at odds with the age of the car would one?

Logic is a tool in the same way a chisel is. A chisel can be used to create, or abused to kill. Logic can also be used and abused. What makes logic and a chisel valuable is material and intent. Basing a logical argument on a false premise is the same as giving a master mason shoddy material. Using logic to define reality is useless unless the premis is founded on reality.

[Tank]

However, if you are a Christian Pastor, you should know that your life, and your belief in the after life revolves around that Christianity and by default, your life should be guided and defined by it. As for politics, Jesus says to "give no thought for the morrow" and "do not resist the evil of others". It should be anathema for you to even consider a future politician and equally abhorrent to watch Christian Politicians swear an oath to their office.

It's a little curious to hear an atheist tell me what my life should be like as a Christian, but suffice it to say that the teachings of Jesus that impact me the most are the ones that tell me to love one another as he loved, to forgive (and you will be forgiven), to give (and it will be given to you), to not judge (and you will not be judged), and to not condemn (and you will not be condemned).  I vote because I think it is everyone's duty to be involved in their society, but I don't talk about politics in any teachings/sermons in my congregation.  I leave it up to them to decide for whom they should vote. I've found that it makes very little difference in my daily life which party is in power. 

I'm surprised that you find this curious as about half the athists that frequented RDF were ex-theists. An ex-smoker is perfectly entitled to have an opinion on smoking and the behaviour of smokers. In fact one may consider the ex-smoker as a better observer of the situation vis-a-vis the benefits/detriments of smoking as they have experienced both sides of the argument.

[Tank]

Just a thought, but humans share the vast majority (exact figure depends on interpretation) of their genes with chimps, yet we are very different from chimps in one crucial respect; intelligence. The premise of the OP mixes a linear variable (99.99 vs 0.01) where the relationship is not linear, the small posited difference is not directy proportional to the effect of the difference.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7e1aebea-03b8-4cb5-8edd-eb705e1c04ba
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/man-who-says-god-told-him-to-k.php

And yes, you might say to yourself, "Well, God wasn't REALLY talking to them, they're just nuts!". But to them, the experience was real. Real enough to go and kill their loved ones. These weren't criminals, drug addicts or homeless loons on the street. These were functional members of society (one of which, a pastor), who thought they had a real "religious experience". If you're arguing that "personal experience" is a good basis, it must be a good basis for everyone, not just people who don't, in retrospect, turn out to be "crazy".

[xSilverPhinx]

I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7e1aebea-03b8-4cb5-8edd-eb705e1c04ba
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/man-who-says-god-told-him-to-k.php

And yes, you might say to yourself, "Well, God wasn't REALLY talking to them, they're just nuts!". But to them, the experience was real. Real enough to go and kill their loved ones. These weren't criminals, drug addicts or homeless loons on the street. These were functional members of society (one of which, a pastor), who thought they had a real "religious experience". If you're arguing that "personal experience" is a good basis, it must be a good basis for everyone, not just people, in retrospect, who turn out to be "crazy".

And if you think about it, they did have a rational reason for doing what they did, because there is the example of Abraham being told by god to kill his son to test his faith. Of course those people were crazy, but the reason was there from which they could construct a flawed rational sequence.

Ecurb Noselrub, what I meant by 'meaningful' was more in line with something that makes sense in a way, which includes false information and fallacies and is more subjectively-based than objective. Because of this, you have people of all geographical locations and cultures interpreting their religious experiences in accordance with what's meaningful to them both culturally and biologically/psychologically.

For instance, when primitive peoples saw volcanoes erupt they thought that their god or gods were angry with them, and so tried to appease it in some way, usually involving some sacrifice of valuable goods (in India, for instance, they still "sacrifice" money on one of their religious sort of Thanksgiving holidays).

Would you say that someone "giving" something to the universe, god or a 'higher power' in order to bargain with it in some way is meaningful or rational?  Are the people sacrificing livestock rational?

[Stevil]

And yes, you might say to yourself, "Well, God wasn't REALLY talking to them, they're just nuts!". But to them, the experience was real. Real enough to go and kill their loved ones. These weren't criminals, drug addicts or homeless loons on the street. These were functional members of society (one of which, a pastor), who thought they had a real "religious experience". If you're arguing that "personal experience" is a good basis, it must be a good basis for everyone, not just people who don't, in retrospect, turn out to be "crazy".

I certainly hold religion accountable for this. Especially when they teach that god communicates to people personally and has a relationship with them. Also when they teach that god asks people to kill others e.g. Abraham and his son.

How on earth can a Christian determine the difference between god communicating or simply an imagined voice in their head?
I have always wondered how they would know it wasn't devil in stead of god.

[Gawen]

Selecting what teachings you would adhere to and throw away the others makes you no different than any other so-called Christian in my mind. This is not meant to be antagonistic in any means. These are the problems and potential hypocrisies you must decide to work out and help out those under your auspices as well.

The "scriptures" were selected for us many years ago.  There is nothing that prevents me from selecting differently, based upon my own personal experience.  Scripture is not as big an issue for me as many Christians I know. Jesus never said that he would leave us a perfect book with all the answers.  He said that he would leave his spirit.  That's more important to me than any scripture.

You just admitted that you do not buy what is written in the Bible; that scripture is not perfect, therefore not inspired or written by God and that selection of scripture is left to your own devising. Otherwise, a spirit helps you be a good Christian. I do not buy this any more than Tank bought what you wrote to him.

Basically, you just...'wing it'...so it seems. Do you, based upon your own personal experience, "select" from the Book of Mormon, extra-Biblical writings, non-canonical writings, JW's Watchtower?
Does the "spirit" point you to portions of Scientology, Islam? Wicca? Norse or Celtic mythology?

And ad others have asked, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not a demon or another God trying to fake you out?

As Ricky Ricardo says to Lucy....you gotta lotta splainin' to do.