Christianity - license to make stuff up.

[Stevil]

I think most people trivialise belief in gods, theists and atheists alike. Very few are taking it serious, those that do take it seriously are often seen by mainstream as being fundamentalist wackos. But the way that I see it is that these fundamentalists are the only ones taking it seriously, they aren't cherry picking, they aren't behaving within the social norms, they are doing and thinking the way they have been taught to believe that their god demands of them. They are the result of that religion. Most religious people are moderate and can function well within society at the cost of interpreting their scripture to make it fit social norms. By my thinking these people are more afraid to be social outcasts than they are afraid of eternal torment. When their money is on the table they are betting on there being no god. Although they continue to talk as if there is a god. Talk is cheap after all.

[Sandra Craft]

But the way that I see it is that these fundamentalists are the only ones taking it seriously, they aren't cherry picking

I think they are, they're just cherry-picking different parts.  In most cases, they emphasis the smiting and shrug off the compassion whereas moderate and liberal Xtians usually do the reverse.

When their money is on the table they are betting on there being no god.

I think they're betting on there being a compassionate god, and why not since there's just as much chance of that as a smiting god or no god.

[Attila]

But the way that I see it is that these fundamentalists are the only ones taking it seriously, they aren't cherry picking

I think they are, they're just cherry-picking different parts.  In most cases, they emphasis the smiting and shrug off the compassion whereas moderate and liberal Xtians usually do the reverse.

When their money is on the table they are betting on there being no god.

I think they're betting on there being a compassionate god, and why not since there's just as much chance of that as a smiting god or no god.

You might feel somewhat differently if your kids had been victimised by these "moderate xtians". You take those beliefs and you mix them with authority  and then you truly know what hell is. I fully respect their right to personally believe whatever they want but imposing those beliefs on someone else... That's where I draw the line. One personal madness should be personal. If you cannot be shown to be wrong about anything that it's not really something you want to share.
ciao,
Attila

[Sandra Craft]

I fully respect their right to personally believe whatever they want but imposing those beliefs on someone else...

We're talking about whether people actually believe what they claim to believe, not if and how they impose it on others.  That's an entirely different matter.

[Tank]

We know it (abiogenesis) happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

Between neutrality and "knowing it happened", there is a step in there that you are skipping over.  Quite understandable because it's a philosophical step you make so fluidly by this point, you've come to accept it as a priori truth.  The step is asking and answering, "What is an acceptable type of explanation?"

Three contestants in this derby:
- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

Your quote above is evidence of a naturalistic philosophy, belief in the Brute Fact that nature and its attendant laws are the cause of all things.  Don't be fooled... despite the claims of many atheists, this philosophy is extra-scientific.  Science says nothing about the types of explanation one can deem viable.  Only philosophy can do that.

The implications of this are many.  For example, if the probability of successful abiogenesis of a robust organism is 1 in 10^1000 during the 300 million year windown in which it could have occurred, those holding to a naturalistic philosophy would still buy that lottery ticket.  They have no other choice! 

In the end, it's your philosophy about which type(s) of explanation is/are in the running that holds the power over your worldview, not mere science.

My assumptions are simple, make logical sense and are based on reality while yours are complicated, fantastical and based on wishful thinking. You're entitled to your views and I to mine. Thing is mine are more likely to  promote further investigation, discovery and knowledge, your's on the other hand prohibit investigation, stifle discovery and inhibit the creation of new knowledge. If you wish to base your world views on millennia old mythology feel free, but don't expect any respect for your world view from people who don't adhere to your particular institutionalised superstition.

You place your theology before observed reality, this being the case I can dismiss your analysis as theologically baised and thus meaningless.

[Norfolk And Chance]

The fact that everbodies god was different (talking just about the christian god here) was a big clue to me as a child that these people are making it up.

[Stevil]

So getting back to the point,

Does Christianity promote a stance where by there are a few absolutes (e.g. Jesus, god, Mary, Moses etc. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we are all sinners, god is perfect and all powerful, Good people go to heaven, Bad people go to hell, Through Jesus is the path to heaven) but then with regards to everything else Christians are free to interpret however they see fit? Even morals are up for grabs.

This must be a very attractive quality of Christianity for the potential theist that just can't find a belief that fits snug like a glove.
Christianity is perfect, god becomes extremely similar to the desires of each individual.

But then again, if you are making stuff up, are you really knowing god or are you creating a god that suits your ideals?
When was the last time you had to swallow your pride and give up one of your own values for a value of god's that you disagree with but have to accept regardless.
If you are consciously creating a god that suits you, then how can you say that you really believe in god? You are simply creating a god but having the luxury of belonging to a group all whom believe in god (under the Christian banner) with some common characters and some common events but actually quite different.

I don't understand how a person can truly believe in something and yet still feel at liberty to just make up the details. They are obviously not worried about getting it wrong and ending up in hell.

[Stevil]

Sorry for all the rants from me on this thread, they have been long and often guilty of trying to drive the same point home but in different ways.
I have found it difficult to try and articulate in a more concise manner my point and I know some people have just simply read this and thought I was going too far and expecting too much.

In conclusion I want to say that we have been conditioned to think that it is acceptable for Christians to make up details and to differ on many aspects whilst still being Christians and being in god's grace.
I don't feel this conditioning is correct and I know that it is not just isolated to Christians. As Atheists we accept that Christians are free to interpret their scripture however they see fit, to make this more palatable, more digestible with regards to the social norms of the time and place that they live in. For those that simply brush me off here and say I am going too far or am a bit crazy, I hope you can consider what I have said and allow yourself to challenge your current ideas of what religion and Christianity is. If god were truly real, if god truly was to punish people for all eternity for not following his/her moral guide then people would be driven to know god and obey rather than simply make stuff up.
People that are being called literal extremists by some on this forum might possibly be doing what is only logical given that they truly believe god is real and that the bible is god's word. People that are mainstream and are interpreting the bible to fit social norms may not be very concerned about punishment because they may not really believe in god, even though they categorically will tell you that they do. You often only know the truth about yourself when you are put to an extreme test where you have no option but to choose one path or the other.

[Attila]

I fully respect their right to personally believe whatever they want but imposing those beliefs on someone else...

We're talking about whether people actually believe what they claim to believe, not if and how they impose it on others.  That's an entirely different matter.

Again: I fail to see the importance of whether or not they believe it. As with anything else | could and probably am wrong about this but I would enjoy hearing an actual argument in favour of caring. My view is that people believe or don't believe all kinds of things but that has naught to do with me and unless I am a personal friend of theirs, I couldn't care less.
Ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

But there is another side to this argument.  With one scoll through Wikipedia's page on abiogenesis, I could create a similar doctrine tree to the one you've created for Christianity.  The one on abiogenesis would actually have more branches, many more indeed!  So if abiogenesis is a legitimate wing of science, claiming that life could arise from non-life, why are most atheists so divided on how this was acheived?

I think this comparison is rather disingenuous and inaccurate. A comparable diagram to one on abiogenesis might be one of all the cosmokrators and creation myths known from the world, of which there are far more varieties and branches than scientific models explaining the origin of life!

I think there is a big difference between scientific and Christian explanation for the origin of life. Scientists base their models on rigorously interpreting the evidence around us, Christians on a 3000 year old myth.

[Sandra Craft]

Again: I fail to see the importance of whether or not they believe it.

That's fine, but that's not what this thread is about.  The religious getting out of hand and trying to impose the practice of their beliefs on others is a valid discussion, particularly as most of us have an axe to grind about it, it's just not the discussion going on here.

[Attila]

Again: I fail to see the importance of whether or not they believe it.

That's fine, but that's not what this thread is about.  The religious getting out of hand and trying to impose the practice of their beliefs on others is a valid discussion, particularly as most of us have an axe to grind about it, it's just not the discussion going on here.

Ok. I'll shut up.[Bows out gracefully.]
Attila

[Sandra Craft]

For those that simply brush me off here and say I am going too far or am a bit crazy, I hope you can consider what I have said and allow yourself to challenge your current ideas of what religion and Christianity is.

Can you challenge yours?  Have you read the bible?  It's so contradictory that A can believe one thing and B the complete opposite and they can both cite biblical scripture that backs them up.  Who's cherry-picking in that case?  Whose religion is based on what the bible really says?

If god were truly real, if god truly was to punish people for all eternity for not following his/her moral guide then people would be driven to know god and obey rather than simply make stuff up.

You seem to be suggesting a form of Pascal's Wager for Xtians, which is odd to me because I've never known an atheist who treats his wager for us with anything but contempt and eyerolling.

[Sandra Craft]

Ok. I'll shut up.[Bows out gracefully.]
Attila

Even better, you can start a thread on your topic.  All I ask is that you not get on my back for not addressing something that wasn't part of the discussion.  This topic's thorny enough as it is.

[Attila]

Ok. I'll shut up.[Bows out gracefully.]
Attila

Even better, you can start a thread on your topic.  All I ask is that you not get on my back for not addressing something that wasn't part of the discussion.  This topic's thorny enough as it is.

Most humble apologies. I'm sorry I gave the impression I was on your back. That was not at all my intention.
ciao,
Attila