This is why Christianity is made fun of
-
Delphine
- Horrid, Pmpous Wench
- Posts: 4720
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:05 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
-
Zeta
- Posts: 4444
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 11:06 am
- Contact:
Holy crap, I agree with popcorn on something . . . that's never happened before. Like, ever.I'm gonna break your heart there and say I think it's very difficult indeed to decide what a 'real' Christian is. From an atheist perspective, every faith-based worldview makes an equal amount of nonsense and there's nothing to indicate that believing in a forgiving, liberal God makes any more sense than believing in a vengeful God who, well, hates fags. And what of Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and pagan witches? Who's right? Who's to say?
-
Radrappy
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:53 pm
- Contact:
this topic is kind of hilarious and I'm glad we've finally come to a "who the hell knows" conclusion. On another note however, the main problem I've had with religion is the following
1)Endorsing a single religion implies that everyone else sans your little community is wrong. We can't all be right.
2)certain people are better than others
3)Christians claim the gates of heaven opened and most of the world didn't hear about it for a thousand years. Something so monumental in terms of the human race sure was low key for a while.
4)Believing in a god is denies that there could be anything else and ignores other questions such as, "if there is a god, why? or If there is a god, how the hell is IT here?" The claim that there is a god actually creates a never ending spiral that becomes more and more vague as it goes back. The claim that "he is because he is" is perhaps the worst cop-out I have ever heard in my life. Believing in a god represents an unwillingness to go further, the desire to just stop at one thing and never contemplate what this being's other properties are.
5)Christianity and Judaism have stemmed from communities that were horridly oppressed throughout ancient history. Hence the invention of heaven and hell to make themselves feel better about being martyrs.
6)the christian use of heaven and hell as a scare tactic.
7)the uselessness of religious community as religious values are very much engrained in our culture.
8)that if Jesus IS "God's son", I'm glad God had the balls to send someone else in his place.
9)the holy trinity and idoltry in christianity. Loopholes what.
Anyway. Religion, especially of western origin, is happy the quash the individual while endorsing communtiy and hokey traditional practices. I believe in the power of the individual and human beings. What lies after death is UNIMPORTANT. Human beings, in order to live CANNOT KNOW if there were a heaven or hell. Because then as such free will is somewhat defeated. On one last note, I hate it when someone thanks god for something THEY'VE accomplished or created. Pride as a sin discourages human creation.
1)Endorsing a single religion implies that everyone else sans your little community is wrong. We can't all be right.
2)certain people are better than others
3)Christians claim the gates of heaven opened and most of the world didn't hear about it for a thousand years. Something so monumental in terms of the human race sure was low key for a while.
4)Believing in a god is denies that there could be anything else and ignores other questions such as, "if there is a god, why? or If there is a god, how the hell is IT here?" The claim that there is a god actually creates a never ending spiral that becomes more and more vague as it goes back. The claim that "he is because he is" is perhaps the worst cop-out I have ever heard in my life. Believing in a god represents an unwillingness to go further, the desire to just stop at one thing and never contemplate what this being's other properties are.
5)Christianity and Judaism have stemmed from communities that were horridly oppressed throughout ancient history. Hence the invention of heaven and hell to make themselves feel better about being martyrs.
6)the christian use of heaven and hell as a scare tactic.
7)the uselessness of religious community as religious values are very much engrained in our culture.
8)that if Jesus IS "God's son", I'm glad God had the balls to send someone else in his place.
9)the holy trinity and idoltry in christianity. Loopholes what.
Anyway. Religion, especially of western origin, is happy the quash the individual while endorsing communtiy and hokey traditional practices. I believe in the power of the individual and human beings. What lies after death is UNIMPORTANT. Human beings, in order to live CANNOT KNOW if there were a heaven or hell. Because then as such free will is somewhat defeated. On one last note, I hate it when someone thanks god for something THEY'VE accomplished or created. Pride as a sin discourages human creation.
-
Frieza2000
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:09 am
- Location: confirmed. Sending supplies.
So we're back to the "Invalid opinion" argument, huh? Ok, let's say there's a group who dislikes a games because the box art contains the color red. I see three possible reasons behind this. Either it's an arbitrary opinion chosen at random against both reason and their true feelings. I would call that an invalid opinion insofar as it's not really their opinion; it's a lie. They probably have reasons to lie to themselves, but they are unrelated to the actual opinion.
The other possibility is that they genuinely have a problem with the color red. Maybe they were traumatized by it as children. Maybe they're using red as a scapegoat to hide from their own problems, or maybe they have a medical condition wherein red causes them pain.
Now, it would be ridiculous for <i>you</i> to hate a game because of the color red because you have no reason to. But that doesn't mean it's ridiculous for everyone to. Does a person who hates all things red have issues to work out? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it bothers them at that particular moment. So in that particular moment, there is a legitimate reason for them to be turned off by red games and the opinion is valid. That opinion should eventually be changed for the sake of the person's mental health, but just because you can't understand the reasoning behind it (or because the person who has it is too inept at communicating to explain it to you, or because they're too inept at self analysis to understand why they have it) doesn't mean it's idiotic. Opinions, like colors, are situational. They're based on the light you're viewing them in.
The third reason is the one we usually discuss here. What if these people, through their clearly damaged sense of reasoning, have determined that red is the root of all evil and continued exposure to it causes herpes. And let's assume that if these people were to sit down and think about that for a little longer, they'd realize it's not true. In this case the opinion is either misinformed, in which case it may not be their fault, or it's not fully thought out, in which case they're just not very cerebral people. Is that an invalid opinion? Not to that person in the fictional situation they perceive themselves as being in. Those people may be stupid, but they genuinely feel what they feel. Because the person really feels negatively around red, the opinion is substantial and must be recognized as such regardless of the fact that it is a delusion. You could say that an opinion based on lies is invalid, and depending on your definition of invalid and the associations you make with that conclusion I'd agree. But I will specify that I don't judge people for having such opinions because things are so often not what they seem and because I understand what it is to be and have sympathy for people who are weak minded.
I think the Christian application of this idea is that our minds have been clouded because of our fallen nature or that the devil is messing with our heads and faith keeps us from sinning even when logic tells us something isn’t a sin.
But I know for certain that Catholicism (a doctrine I’m relatively familiar with) asserts that faith need not be (and, ideally, should no be) blind. Rational people base their beliefs on the logical analysis of the information they’ve obtained, and lots of them have emerged from this continuous process with a religious belief. Obviously the evidence they’ve based this on could be false or their analytical process flawed. Does that make their belief invalid? Heh. Maybe so, but it definitely doesn’t invalidate the person.
(I know you’re not saying it does, I’m just being artlessly poetic)
The other possibility is that they genuinely have a problem with the color red. Maybe they were traumatized by it as children. Maybe they're using red as a scapegoat to hide from their own problems, or maybe they have a medical condition wherein red causes them pain.
Now, it would be ridiculous for <i>you</i> to hate a game because of the color red because you have no reason to. But that doesn't mean it's ridiculous for everyone to. Does a person who hates all things red have issues to work out? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it bothers them at that particular moment. So in that particular moment, there is a legitimate reason for them to be turned off by red games and the opinion is valid. That opinion should eventually be changed for the sake of the person's mental health, but just because you can't understand the reasoning behind it (or because the person who has it is too inept at communicating to explain it to you, or because they're too inept at self analysis to understand why they have it) doesn't mean it's idiotic. Opinions, like colors, are situational. They're based on the light you're viewing them in.
The third reason is the one we usually discuss here. What if these people, through their clearly damaged sense of reasoning, have determined that red is the root of all evil and continued exposure to it causes herpes. And let's assume that if these people were to sit down and think about that for a little longer, they'd realize it's not true. In this case the opinion is either misinformed, in which case it may not be their fault, or it's not fully thought out, in which case they're just not very cerebral people. Is that an invalid opinion? Not to that person in the fictional situation they perceive themselves as being in. Those people may be stupid, but they genuinely feel what they feel. Because the person really feels negatively around red, the opinion is substantial and must be recognized as such regardless of the fact that it is a delusion. You could say that an opinion based on lies is invalid, and depending on your definition of invalid and the associations you make with that conclusion I'd agree. But I will specify that I don't judge people for having such opinions because things are so often not what they seem and because I understand what it is to be and have sympathy for people who are weak minded.
I don't want to get into a religious argument, but I do want to put this out there. The concept if faith is abused in this way, but that’s not what it was intended for. I don’t know if what I’m saying is part of any religious doctrine, but I think faith is meant to keep us from acting rashly. I had a lot of experiences with this concept as I went through adolescence. There were times when I was either missing key facts in a situation or when my mind was too clouded to analyze them correctly. Logic and reason told me to act a certain way, but I chose to doubt myself and trust in my memory. I had faith in my previous analyses and that kept me from doing things I was later able to realize were stupid.Popcorn wrote:But in a nutshell, my peeve with religion is that it is a kind of self-inflicted 'anti-thinking', a complete surrender to irrationality; the total giving up of the self to a concept that cannot possibly exist in the way religious people think it can. Faith is the very opposite of rational thinking and I think, as such, it is damaging.
I think the Christian application of this idea is that our minds have been clouded because of our fallen nature or that the devil is messing with our heads and faith keeps us from sinning even when logic tells us something isn’t a sin.
But I know for certain that Catholicism (a doctrine I’m relatively familiar with) asserts that faith need not be (and, ideally, should no be) blind. Rational people base their beliefs on the logical analysis of the information they’ve obtained, and lots of them have emerged from this continuous process with a religious belief. Obviously the evidence they’ve based this on could be false or their analytical process flawed. Does that make their belief invalid? Heh. Maybe so, but it definitely doesn’t invalidate the person.
(I know you’re not saying it does, I’m just being artlessly poetic)
-
Wooduck51
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: apparently, in front of my computer
Responding to each number:Radrappy wrote: 2)certain people are better than others
4)Believing in a god is denies that there could be anything else and ignores other questions such as, "if there is a god, why? or If there is a god, how the hell is IT here?" The claim that there is a god actually creates a never ending spiral that becomes more and more vague as it goes back. The claim that "he is because he is" is perhaps the worst cop-out I have ever heard in my life. Believing in a god represents an unwillingness to go further, the desire to just stop at one thing and never contemplate what this being's other properties are.
6)the christian use of heaven and hell as a scare tactic.
8)that if Jesus IS "God's son", I'm glad God had the balls to send someone else in his place.
9)the holy trinity and idoltry in christianity. Loopholes what.
2) That would be the scurge of "Churianity" that has befallen Christianity the qualification is this : Romans 10:9-10:
9 That if you confess with your mouth the LORD Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
3) satan puts alot of work into trying to keep eternal life under wraps,
he would prefer to take as many souls as possible with him when he is chucked into the eternal lake of fire to suffer.
4) Answer is simple, GOD always has been around, you say that cannot be, but the reason why is because humans need set points to function, we made up "time" so are brains could stay stable.
6) A christian should not use scare tactics to try to make people believe.
8) Since something had to be sacrificed, had to die for the sins of the human race, since GOD cannot die it is not possible for him to do it. And by the way do you think it was fun for him to send his son to die? Don't think so.
9) Humans are corruptible, because groups have such things does not mean it is right.
Your other points seemed like random stuff you threw in there.
-
Radrappy
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:53 pm
- Contact:
why did anything have to die? What are you talking about? God can do anything remember?
4) as you're stating, time being a human invention, you still have not answered the why. Why is there nothing beyond god? I realize we can't even comprehend such, but it's too easy to stop at "god is here, all powerful, loves you, and has always done so." Why did it make us? The old testement claims our purpose is to worship god. Are we a self esteem boost for God? Or is it because he loves us?
3) so communication problems, and the fact that native americans were born on a seperate continent than the holy land is the work of satan?
6) hell is a scare tactic no matter how you put it. The idea of eternal suffering has a way of doing this.
4) as you're stating, time being a human invention, you still have not answered the why. Why is there nothing beyond god? I realize we can't even comprehend such, but it's too easy to stop at "god is here, all powerful, loves you, and has always done so." Why did it make us? The old testement claims our purpose is to worship god. Are we a self esteem boost for God? Or is it because he loves us?
3) so communication problems, and the fact that native americans were born on a seperate continent than the holy land is the work of satan?
6) hell is a scare tactic no matter how you put it. The idea of eternal suffering has a way of doing this.
-
M.C.Dillinger
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:47 pm
- Location: Master Tails Doll comes from a place where such things are meaningless
- Contact:
-
Omni Hunter
- Omnizzy
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:50 am
- Location: MK, Satan's Layby
- Contact:
I remember how people used to blame things on god merely because they didn't understand the physics.
Lightning and tides for example, were just excused as actions of a god in many cultures, now we know why on a physical level.
But the whole concept of religion draws comparisons to fanboyism (loyalty even through the darkest times, very hard to persuade otherwise, can be obsessive), this forum could be the church of a certain denomination in the games community.
Besides, we have people around the world who claim their religion as Jedi who probably believe in the Force in certain nature, is that not proof enough?
Not that I know anything about religion, I got an "E" for my GCSE's.
Lightning and tides for example, were just excused as actions of a god in many cultures, now we know why on a physical level.
But the whole concept of religion draws comparisons to fanboyism (loyalty even through the darkest times, very hard to persuade otherwise, can be obsessive), this forum could be the church of a certain denomination in the games community.
Besides, we have people around the world who claim their religion as Jedi who probably believe in the Force in certain nature, is that not proof enough?
Not that I know anything about religion, I got an "E" for my GCSE's.
-
Wooduck51
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: apparently, in front of my computer
GOD does not go against his own word, in the old testament you needed to sacrifice something to cleanse you of your sins. GOD followed what HE had laid down all ready with the master sacrifice, so that everyone could have Holy Spirit.Radrappy wrote:why did anything have to die? What are you talking about? God can do anything remember?
4) as you're stating, time being a human invention, you still have not answered the why. Why is there nothing beyond god? I realize we can't even comprehend such, but it's too easy to stop at "god is here, all powerful, loves you, and has always done so." Why did it make us? The old testement claims our purpose is to worship god. Are we a self esteem boost for God? Or is it because he loves us?
3) so communication problems, and the fact that native americans were born on a seperate continent than the holy land is the work of satan?
6) hell is a scare tactic no matter how you put it. The idea of eternal suffering has a way of doing this.
4) Because he loves us.
3) Communication problems because of satan.
6) can't help that.
-
Double-S-
- News Guy
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:18 pm
- Location: Texas
Do you have a pet? Then you know it's nice when it gives you love/attention. And chances are you love your pet. I know a lot of people don't like this because they think humans are somehow above that.Radrappy wrote:4) Why did it make us? The old testement claims our purpose is to worship god. Are we a self esteem boost for God? Or is it because he loves us?
-
Crazy Penguin
- Drano Master
- Posts: 1903
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:06 pm
-
Radrappy
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:53 pm
- Contact:
-
M.C.Dillinger
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:47 pm
- Location: Master Tails Doll comes from a place where such things are meaningless
- Contact:
-
chriscaffee
- Posts: 2021
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:43 am
A few months ago I adopted a nihilistic world view for purpose of debate only. I never used this world view in practice, but still, it lead to an increased lack of faith in the religion I had been brought up with (Christianity). Since then I have seen many good arguments for theism in general and Christianity specifically such as the morality argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument and the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection. These arguments are not people surrendering to a book and saying "I don't want to think." They might not be correct and they certainly aren't proof of God's existence, but I don't see them as excuses for people to stop thinking.
Another problem is that logic and rational thought cannot substantiate themselves. Godel's Incompleteness Theorm essentially says that all logic is circular. The problem is that you have no bar (truth) to compare it to because nobody knows what truth is. So while logic makes sense, it isn't necessarily any more meritorious then faith.
I will reveiw the websites that Del listed but I have the feeling that they are not so much arguments against religion but examples of people claiming to be a part of a religion doing obnoxious things. Such emotively charged anecdotes have no place in a logical debate, for the record, but I'll check them out before commenting further.
EDIT: Yup. Exactly what I expected (though hovering over the hyperlink gave a good clue). Not an argument against religion (which is what I asked for) and not even an argument against Christianity (which is not what I asked for) but just a website about a bunch of people who don't like homosexuals and look for Biblical support for it.
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that homosexual sex is not a sin. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I don't know if there is or not, and I don't care because honestly it isn't relevant to me. If Del wants to marry a consenting woman and Zeta a consenting man then go for it.
Now imagine instead a man who is born with a lust to hurt other people, kill them even. This individual gets enormous amounts of pleasure in killing and torturing people. Now most people agree that killing someone is wrong. But this person was born that way right? I mean it's not HIS fault that he likes killing people. Why should he not get to do what he wants?
Now if homosexuality is a wrong (not saying it is) then the argument that "I was born with it, it isn't my fault etc" no longer works.
Another problem is that logic and rational thought cannot substantiate themselves. Godel's Incompleteness Theorm essentially says that all logic is circular. The problem is that you have no bar (truth) to compare it to because nobody knows what truth is. So while logic makes sense, it isn't necessarily any more meritorious then faith.
I will reveiw the websites that Del listed but I have the feeling that they are not so much arguments against religion but examples of people claiming to be a part of a religion doing obnoxious things. Such emotively charged anecdotes have no place in a logical debate, for the record, but I'll check them out before commenting further.
EDIT: Yup. Exactly what I expected (though hovering over the hyperlink gave a good clue). Not an argument against religion (which is what I asked for) and not even an argument against Christianity (which is not what I asked for) but just a website about a bunch of people who don't like homosexuals and look for Biblical support for it.
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that homosexual sex is not a sin. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I don't know if there is or not, and I don't care because honestly it isn't relevant to me. If Del wants to marry a consenting woman and Zeta a consenting man then go for it.
Now imagine instead a man who is born with a lust to hurt other people, kill them even. This individual gets enormous amounts of pleasure in killing and torturing people. Now most people agree that killing someone is wrong. But this person was born that way right? I mean it's not HIS fault that he likes killing people. Why should he not get to do what he wants?
Now if homosexuality is a wrong (not saying it is) then the argument that "I was born with it, it isn't my fault etc" no longer works.
-
Omni Hunter
- Omnizzy
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:50 am
- Location: MK, Satan's Layby
- Contact:
There is definitely a difference between creative and destructive religion, it's impossible to say religion is bad or good because like many ideas, some good has come with the bad.
It's such a grey area though with all the religions, their denominations and even individuals, it's not like all Catholics will resort to spreading the Gospel.
It's such a grey area though with all the religions, their denominations and even individuals, it's not like all Catholics will resort to spreading the Gospel.
-
Delphine
- Horrid, Pmpous Wench
- Posts: 4720
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:05 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
-
Popcorn
- The Peanut Gallery
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:25 pm
- Location: UK
Here we go, opening up a very familiar can of worms. Well, here goes nothing: appealing to the existence of morality as proof of God flat-out doesn't work, because 1) there is no consistent 'universal' morality that everyone adheres to or agrees with, 2) there is no way of empirically proving any moral standard to be right or wrong, 3) even if there is a universal standard of right and wrong, there is furthermore no reason to think that God as something like Christianity might envisage him has anything to do with it. 'God' might be another word for 'absolute good', and there are arguments in favour of moral absolutism that aren't complete twaddle, but the religious belief in a magic man up in the sky that sends you to heaven and hell has no place in it.chriscaffee wrote: morality argument,
... which is flawed in many ways, the simplest of which being the classic problem of infinite regress: that is, if the universe needs a cause to explain its existence (and even that is highly debateable), what is there to prevent God from having a necessary creator himself? 'God' is not an answer to the mystery of the universe's existence. If you're not already familiar with his work, I recommend you see what you make of David Hume's arguments against the Cosmological argument.the Kalam Cosmological argument
There is none.and the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection.
Well, no religious person thinks that their faith is an excuse to stop thinking. They think they're absolutely right. I don't think they are. There are reasonable arguments in favour of moral absolutism and the intelligent creation of the universe, but these are quite unconnected to religions of faith and all that comes with them. Even the word 'faith' is revealing: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. That's not a healthy, rational or useful way to assume anything to be true. Whether people want to admit it or not, in subscribing to a religion they are throwing their hands up and saying "I am disregarding all the logical and rational faculties of my mind in favour of this weird thing that means I get to go to heaven when I die".These arguments are not people surrendering to a book and saying "I don't want to think." They might not be correct and they certainly aren't proof of God's existence, but I don't see them as excuses for people to stop thinking.
Logic is the best thing we have. It's never failed us, it gets things done, and it's got a damn higher success rate than any other means of working anything out.So while logic makes sense, it isn't necessarily any more meritorious then faith.
So you don't care if something that hundreds of millions of people participate in every day is wrong or not? Surely it matters very much, especially considering the amount of flak homosexuals come under for having 'chosen' their sinful sexuality. If they're in the right, that's a grave injustice happening there, right? You're just gonna throw that out of the window and claim it's not your problem because you're not gay? That doesn't sound very Christian of you. But anyway.
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that homosexual sex is not a sin. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I don't know if there is or not, and I don't care because honestly it isn't relevant to me.
I agree with you there, in some capacity. If something can be rationally demonstrated to be A Bad Thing, then of course people should not do it, whether they're naturally inclined to want to or not. But this has absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever. Yes, if it turns out that being homosexual is morally wrong and sinful, then homosexuals should try to suppress their desires; but there is absolutely no rational reason to suspect that is the case. There is no part of homosexuality that requires the killing or torture of anyone, for a start.Now imagine instead a man who is born with a lust to hurt other people, kill them even. This individual gets enormous amounts of pleasure in killing and torturing people. Now most people agree that killing someone is wrong. But this person was born that way right? I mean it's not HIS fault that he likes killing people. Why should he not get to do what he wants?
Now if homosexuality is a wrong (not saying it is) then the argument that "I was born with it, it isn't my fault etc" no longer works.
EDIT: Unless you're Del.
-
M.C.Dillinger
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:47 pm
- Location: Master Tails Doll comes from a place where such things are meaningless
- Contact:
-
Delphine
- Horrid, Pmpous Wench
- Posts: 4720
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:05 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
-
chriscaffee
- Posts: 2021
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:43 am
In defense of the moral argument:
If a universal (not universally accepted, because truth doesn't have to be universally accepted) morality exists then it implies that there is an intention behind the universe. The intention would reasonable have to come from a personal being and that would be God. I have come to the conclusion that if there is a God, there must be a universal morality and if there is no God then there cannot be a universal morality.
In defense of the Kalam argument:
If the universe does require a cause (which it might not as the laws of casuality were not in existence until the universe was - not that that makes any sense because "until the universe was" implies that there was a "before the universe" which of course, there wasn't) then the cause must exist outside of the limits of the universe (timeless, spaceless and immaterial). From there you only have to argue if the cause was personal or impersonal. From the morality argument you can see that it must be personal. There was a further argument for why the cause must be personal, but I don't remember it.
In defense of the historical evidence for the resurrection:
I hate to cite it but the Bible is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The Bible mentions actual real historical events in it and "historical fiction" was not a genre in existence at the time, so the Bible is most certainly not a novel. Thus there are only three options: it is a hoax, it was written by crazy people or it is true. The hoax can be eliminated right off the bat as most of the apostles faced their own death so sincere was their belief. Craziness can be eliminated as they all stick to the same story and there are multiple accounts of different people seeing Jesus after the resurrection. It's not proof, it isn't air tight and you might not think it holds much water, but its still evidence nonetheless.
In defense of me not worrying about homosexual behavior:
I do not support the mistreatment of homosexuals. When I said I didn't care, I only was meaning that it isn't my place to say whether or not it is right or wrong. Much like with abortion. I don't have a stance on abortion one way or the other: my perspective is that I don't know enough about it to make a good distinction of what is right or wrong. If asked my opinion I would advise against an abortion on the chance that abortion is wrong, but I certainly wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic or support such behavior.
In defense of religion in general:
You admit that logic won't take you to the truth and provide answers and it doesn't make that claim. You claim also that religion is intellectually lazy, and causes people not to think. However if logic by your own admission will never give you the truth, so it sounds like by throwing out religion and saying "well I can't find the truth with logic, but it's all I'm going to use" you are sort of giving up. Perhaps you are still thinking but you are only describing reality and not searching for the truth. Now I'm not saying that religion is a guarantee to finding the truth, but it's possible.
Does it not interst you or do you try and find it through philisophy? Philisophy is not quite the same as religion but it doesn't deny theism (or ignore it as in the case of hard science). I don't know it just seems like throwing out religion in general and dismissing it as wacky just because it might not be intellectual isn't right. I mean what makes the human mind so important anyway? Without a creator humans have to be left to their own devices to come up with a purpose and maybe yours has to do with thinking, but then you should recognize that other people might not value that and they shouldn't have to.
If a universal (not universally accepted, because truth doesn't have to be universally accepted) morality exists then it implies that there is an intention behind the universe. The intention would reasonable have to come from a personal being and that would be God. I have come to the conclusion that if there is a God, there must be a universal morality and if there is no God then there cannot be a universal morality.
In defense of the Kalam argument:
If the universe does require a cause (which it might not as the laws of casuality were not in existence until the universe was - not that that makes any sense because "until the universe was" implies that there was a "before the universe" which of course, there wasn't) then the cause must exist outside of the limits of the universe (timeless, spaceless and immaterial). From there you only have to argue if the cause was personal or impersonal. From the morality argument you can see that it must be personal. There was a further argument for why the cause must be personal, but I don't remember it.
In defense of the historical evidence for the resurrection:
I hate to cite it but the Bible is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The Bible mentions actual real historical events in it and "historical fiction" was not a genre in existence at the time, so the Bible is most certainly not a novel. Thus there are only three options: it is a hoax, it was written by crazy people or it is true. The hoax can be eliminated right off the bat as most of the apostles faced their own death so sincere was their belief. Craziness can be eliminated as they all stick to the same story and there are multiple accounts of different people seeing Jesus after the resurrection. It's not proof, it isn't air tight and you might not think it holds much water, but its still evidence nonetheless.
In defense of me not worrying about homosexual behavior:
I do not support the mistreatment of homosexuals. When I said I didn't care, I only was meaning that it isn't my place to say whether or not it is right or wrong. Much like with abortion. I don't have a stance on abortion one way or the other: my perspective is that I don't know enough about it to make a good distinction of what is right or wrong. If asked my opinion I would advise against an abortion on the chance that abortion is wrong, but I certainly wouldn't bomb an abortion clinic or support such behavior.
In defense of religion in general:
You admit that logic won't take you to the truth and provide answers and it doesn't make that claim. You claim also that religion is intellectually lazy, and causes people not to think. However if logic by your own admission will never give you the truth, so it sounds like by throwing out religion and saying "well I can't find the truth with logic, but it's all I'm going to use" you are sort of giving up. Perhaps you are still thinking but you are only describing reality and not searching for the truth. Now I'm not saying that religion is a guarantee to finding the truth, but it's possible.
Does it not interst you or do you try and find it through philisophy? Philisophy is not quite the same as religion but it doesn't deny theism (or ignore it as in the case of hard science). I don't know it just seems like throwing out religion in general and dismissing it as wacky just because it might not be intellectual isn't right. I mean what makes the human mind so important anyway? Without a creator humans have to be left to their own devices to come up with a purpose and maybe yours has to do with thinking, but then you should recognize that other people might not value that and they shouldn't have to.