Disproving Christianity?

[Ally.P]

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis ["speech for the altars and hearths"] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man ["Unmensch"], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

 

[depps]

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis ["speech for the altars and hearths"] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man ["Unmensch"], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

Sorry Ally.P your point is what exactly? I must be kinda slow today I don't get it other than the inverted colours?

 

[Ally.P]

Sorry Ally.P your point is what exactly? I must be kinda slow today I don't get it other than the inverted colours?

I'm sorry, i was just messing. I was really interested in what you wrote. I just had to read it through about....oooh.....ten times!! ;-p The pic was supposed to indicate a "hhmmm i dont get it " look. I wouldnt knowingly slag off any poster on here. x

 

[depps]

Sorry Ally.P your point is what exactly? I must be kinda slow today I don't get it other than the inverted colours?

I'm sorry, i was just messing. I was really interested in what you wrote. I just had to read it through about....oooh.....ten times!! ;-p The pic was supposed to indicate a "hhmmm i dont get it " look. I wouldnt knowingly slag off any poster on here. x

Ha I didn't write it, it's Marx, I'm not quite that insightful, well not yet anyway.

 

[ElanJo]

Ok. First of all it seems as tho my OP argument isn't applicable for you because it is dependant upon the sub premises of Premise 2, that most Christians share, that belief in and love/praise of God is extremely important, if not of the utmost importance, as to whether you go to "heaven" or "Hell".
You do not believe that belief in and love/praise of God is at all relevant. However since you have attempted to refute all premises I'll reply to them anyway since they may be shared by those who do believe belief in Jesus/Yahweh is very important.

I don't see an either-or relationship there. You can be both.

I'm not saying it's an either/or relationship, I'm just saying he is not a dictator.

It sure looked like it considering that was the only reason given. Anyway, so you agree that you can be both. Fine.

1.
Well I don't necessarily mean he crafted us out of clay etc, but it works either way. Are you saying that he created the universe but would have been surprised as anyone to find that homosapiens had evolved on Earth? In other words, God is not omniscient?

And, on a side note, what does this say in your view about souls? Does everything have a soul? Does nothing have a soul? Did God put a soul in us when we evolved to a certain point?

Either way, he created us, directly or indirectly, with limited (compared to him) capabilities (eg. reliant on external stimuli to negotiate our existence)

I'm not saying that. He knows life exists, he knows we exist or he wouldn't have sent Jesus. And I'm not sure about the soul thing, to me it doesn't make sense why we'd be so highly valued over any other species in the Universe when we are as you say so limited. Again to me this stems from problems with The Bible, it causes conflicts in belief.

Obviously he knows that we exist - he's God - but that wasn't the point.
The point was that he created us. If he is omniscient then when he set the Big Bang going (and thus the long chain of cause and effect that eventually lead to us forming on Earth) he'd know straight away - and beforehand - that we'd form. He thus created us knowingly.

The overall point of the 1st premise is 2 fold. 1. He created us 2. He created us with only certain capabilities (eg. Being restricted to external stimuli in order to navigate and make sense of our existence - eyes, ears etc) .
As yet you have only nick picked at how he went about creating us.

PS. I could change this premise and still arrive at the same conclusion. Even if God had no idea that we'd appear and what we'd be like he still set the rules (Premise 2) for us. The overall argument would still not be applicable to you personally but that's ok

2.
So you agree with the main premise of 2 (that he wants us to acknowledge that he exists and praise him for what he did.)

i and ii) Do you agree with i) (if you recognise God and praise him you will be rewarded) or is this praise and thanks completely irrelevant to whether you get the reward or the punishment?
EDIT: It seems that after reading your objection to 3 your answer to this is "yes"

3.
So you think it is irrelevant because the reward and punishment is based solely on whether you're evil or not, right?
Either way, you accept the premise that to praise something you first have to acknowledge that it exists?

From my perspective God is all-loving and all-caring, so he will forgive us, unless your Hitler. If you believe something exists, you can praise it, though that sounds odd. Like I said I don't believe specifically in Heaven or Hell, I believe in solely an afterlife, and that the descriptions of Hell were there purely to put the fear into the people in the Middle Ages, like I said, I believe there are quite a few problems with The Bible, this being one of them

Right so you do agree with the main premise (3 - that he wants us to acknowledge and praise him) but disagree with the following sub premises because you believe that thinking that he exists and praising him are of no consequence as to whether you get the reward/afterlife or the punishment/annihilation because this reward/punishment system, according to you, is based entirely on good/bad deeds. If anything he merely thinks it is good manners for us to praise him.

Correct?

4.
He sent himself/Jesus to a small area of the world 2000 years ago, and spent a couple of decades there which amounts to the tiniest fraction of a percentage of human existence and human lives lived. Furthermore there is nothing special about the Bible to suggest that this book is the one to believe over any other scripture from all the false religion and Gods. Is this not correct?

Yes but remember how tiny we are compared to the Universe. The bible I believe in it's fundamental state is true and that God exists and Jesus is the Son of God, I believe some of the stories are correct, and I believe some of the stories are just created to explain the true meaning of the message of what God or Jesus wants us to know.

OK, so this(the bold) is the relevant part. It seems that you're saying that the size of the universe is too much for God :S
Are you? or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here? Is God not capable enough?

The rest of your comment is just you stating what you believe in the Bible. That's fine but it doesn't address the problem, related to God's hiddenness, that the Bible doesn't stand out as the specific scripture (and religion/God) that everyone should believe in... which is part of the premise of the argument.

5.
I think you're being put off by the word "dictator" because it conjures up images of Hitler etc. You can be a loving dictator (eg.Parent - Child relationship) The point here is that he is in total control. He sets the rules in every conceivable way and in the end decides your future. You agree?

No. He created the universe, but everything living has free will. He won't restrict nature, he set the 10 commandments, but they are now basic human laws the majority of them, so really he was just helping our development. He doesn't decide our future on this Earth, but he does decide whether or not to take us into the afterlife, how you act and behave in life dictates whether or not you get that opportunity in my opinion. He is not in total control otherwise we wouldn't have Free Will, do you not understand that?

Yes, my point about deciding our future was in regards to our eternal fate (after death) not what we do in life - bit vague on my part.

He has decided what constitutes the behaviour that determines whether you gain the reward(afterlife) or punishment(annihilation) and, I presume, he is the one that judges whether you're evil enough for the punishment. And, of course, he is the one who decided that there should be a reward/punishment system. So he is in the position of dictator, right? This is not to say that he is a Hitler type dictator - he could quite easily be the good type of dictator eg. a Parent. He's the overall and supreme authority, yes?

Bringing up the Ten Commandments I suspect brings up problems for your view of God but I want to try and keep this solely about my OP argument so I won't mention them (yet ;) ).

This is illogical. If he was to create us as robots that loved him and thus followed him then he'd take our Free Will away. Free Will is not touched upon in the slightest if he was to show us all that he existed and left us in no doubt which God he actually was. We'd still have the Free Will to follow him or not. According to the Bible his own Angels chose not to follow him and they obviously knew that he existed and which God he was. Free Will means the ability to choose free of coercion. It is not the free choice to believe whether something exists or not (not that choice is in any way relevant to believing something to be real or not)

I'd write about how I struggle to come to terms with how you justify your belief in Jesus/Yahweh when you distrust almost all of the Bible but I don't want to muddy the waters.... and I'm about ready to collapse on my keyboard.

Yes it is touched upon, because we are limited and if you saw him you would believe in him, and if you believed in him you would obey him, hence your free will is gone. We are not angels, so you can't use the comparison.

No. You can choose to obey him or not. This is why using the angels comparison is valid. Free Will is being free to choose. You believe something exists because of evidence or reason. In the case of your beliefs it is the Bible and Jesus.

I have to ask, based on your view, are you then saying that Jesus took away the free will of his followers 2000 years ago?
If you say "No" then you refute your own argument that being shown that God exists takes away free will. If you say "Yes" then you have to stop using free will in this context (which you should do anyway because it is illogical)

The argument of Free Will pertains to questions like "If there's a God then why did he allow Hitler to do what he did" This is an argument, using Free Will, defending God that is valid.

 

[ElanJo]

TheLegendOfBerti

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Jesus' crucifixion?

 

[Anonymous]

yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn.

give it up elanjo.

you're obsessed.

 

[Scottyboi]

yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn.

give it up elanjo.

you're obsessed.

The guy is fucking insane lol what is he going to gain with his crusade against religion.

 

[ElanJo]

yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn.

give it up elanjo.

you're obsessed.

The guy is fucking insane lol what is he going to gain with his crusade against religion.

Yea, silly me, spending about 30 mins of my time in the past 2 days talking about this. I should be spending 8 hours camped in the weekly Robinho thread. Fuck off!! lmao

I find religion interesting and you find whatever it is - barns and muffins? - that you find interesting.

 

[Scottyboi]

The guy is fucking insane lol what is he going to gain with his crusade against religion.

Yea, silly me, spending about 30 mins of my time in the past 2 days talking about this. I should be spending 8 hours camped in the weekly Robinho thread. Fuck off!! lmao

I find religion interesting and you find whatever it is - barns and muffins? - that you find interesting.

poker and football games. I like history and battles ect but science and religion do nothing for me.