Name:sam •
Title: Are Christians delusional ? •
Date posted: 08/19/12 19:40
Q: "Are Christians delusional?" Richard Carrier skepticon 3
This is another video from youtube [Nov.2010], in which Richard Carrier [Phd. in ancient history] , a former Christian who turn to 'atheism' try to explain what is wrong in believing in God , and all the stories that came in the Bible in which he believed in before been taken from other old religions.
Studying the Bible turned Prof. Ehrman to be 'Agnostic' , witch is as there is nothing is or can be known of existence of God, and turned Dr. Carrier to be an 'Atheist' believing that God does not exists .
While Dr. Ehrman delt with his suject in regard to the Gospels as an 'observer', and bringing clear proofs to support his claims, on the other side Richard Carrier delt with his subject by bringing and creating his own rules and regulaions to prove his point of view, and that cannot be accepted , and let me bring some of his claims, and see if he was right or wrong:
His claims: " In , The outsider test for faith", followed by my opinion.
1- "You must test your own religious claims and texts by the same standards you apply to other religions"
---- That is true.
2- "If your religion's claims and texts fare no better, then your religion is just as false as their is."
---- Since he is a former Christian that means he knows his Bible very well, and he saw it as a false teachings, and holding a Phd. in history, he might studied, or at least read the Hindu and Buddhist religions books, and the later must had some influence on him, since Buddhists they do not believe in God, but my question is, "DID HE EVER READ THE QURAN OR STUDIED THE ISLAM RELIGION ?"
My answer to that is ' NO'. the reason because:
First, while he brought the name 'Islam' in his talks, he did not bring anything from the Quran teachings to prove the Quran is wrong, or to prove the religion of Islam is wrong as he did with the Bible and the Christian religion.
Second, As a former Christian, he was tought to hate Islam and the Muslims [for many years], and tought that the Quran in the work of the devil, and that is a hard thing to forget after many years believing in what you been tought.
Third, he claims, "that if your religion text fare no better, so, it is a false religion" . And stop here!. As if want to tell his audience in advance that all religions are the same, and that is completely wrong.
He cannot judge in advance, and without knowing the other religion.
What about if the other religion 'FARE BETTER', can it taken as false too?
Those Christians who studied the Quran and the Islam religion to became a strong believers in God, are those not counted as people who differentiate the right from the wrong , or only those who follow Mr. Carrier are the smart ones ?.
Then Mr. Carrier went on to bring his invented formula, and here what it say:
1- "The smarter you are = The less likely to believe.
----- In what he came with I will give him a Phd. in the history of stupidity, and the reason are:
First, He tells us that those who believe in God are not so smart, and that is as he claimed a stupid thing to say,
Second, because he is a short minded person who does not know the logic, and because as if he do not know that there are billions who believe in God and among them are those with a very high degree of education and knowledge.
2- "The more you know = the less likely to believe"
---- I say that is true if we look at it from the side of those who been Christians and after that they turned away, because of what they find in their Bible/Gospels from false informations and contradictions.
If that can be true as we can see happening to some Christians, as Ehrman, and Carrier and those who followed Darwin [those who believen that they came from the apes family], and those who followed Buddha.
This cannot be said about the many who found the truth about God in the Quran, and from the words of Jesus, from billions of Muslims, Christians , and those who chose the Islam every day, and chose God instead of Darwin and Buddha..
3- "The more self-respect = the less likely to believe."
---- Another stupid claim by Phd. Carrier !.
My question, "are those who believe in God are having less self-respect, when compared to those who do not believe in God ! ???
Does Phd. Carrier have any respect to anyone beside those who do not believe in God ?.
Dear Indie, I would like if you watch Phd. Carrier works, and give me your opinion about him and also about my answers to his claims.
I did only watched one yesterday , and after this I am going to look at his debates too.
God bless you.
Name:QuebecIndieAnna •
Date: 08/20/12 20:07
A: .
Monday August 20th 2012
Hi Sam,
I had never heard of the historian, Richard Carrier.
At first, I thought he looked about 22 years old. While listening to the clip you directed me to, I realized he must be older than that. He is in his 40s, in fact.
He is from California, a more liberal part of the US. This can explain, but only in part, his wish to contribute to a dialogue that allows for a place in the public forum for a non-religious point of view.
I think that in the US, because of the strength of the Evangelical Christian movement, there is a kind of 'backlash' (a reaction) to the political force of Evangelical Christianity.
Have you noticed, during the past few US elections, that candidates are almost 'forced' to come out and say they are Christian?
The strength of the Evangelical movement has created a culture that almost requires candidates to 'reasure' the voting public that they are Christian and that it is okay to vote for them.
I compare this phenomenon to high school students who panic if their mothers try to buy clothes for them that do not resemble what the 'cool' kids in school are wearing. Just as there is a pressure to 'conform' to a dress-code in high school, in the US, the religious right has imposed on the culture of election time the requirement that presidential candidates state what their Christian religious beliefs are.
We saw it wit Bush Junior. We saw it with both Clintons...
We reeeeeally saw it with Pres. Barach Obama.
I noticed the beginnings of a reaction to the religious right when comedians in the US criticized the power of the religious right.
Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are comedians who each in their own way have criticized the power of the religious right.
It began with mild statements such as
'Everybody knows that if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person'.
Such statements were made to cause people to react and say :
"Well, no, it is not logical to say that someone is a bad person just because they do not support the Evangelical right in the US."
Slowly, the odd person who has a voice in the media has, from time to time, stood up and expressed that they are fed-up with the US religious right having such power and control over opinions and over the political process.
What is said in the world of entertainment and in the arts eventually influences what people in academia say.
So, it was to be expected that a sociologiest, or a philosopher, or a historian would come along and offer Americans a recipe of sorts, on how to take away from the religious right some of its political power.
Dr. Carrier is just one of those young intellectuals who is fed-up with the religio-political culture of the US telling him that he must have some kind of religious position. Those who do not practice a religious faith are tired of being treated as if they are not worthy, whole human being too.
When I was little, living in France in the 60s, at 8 years of age, I can remember hearing discussions between the adults in the families of my classmates who had very, very differing views on faith. Many of the adults I heard speaking were humanists with no religious afiliations.
The rise in the US of voices of those tired of being told they are not good people just because they are not religious is a familiar sound to me.
I remember one old grand-father of one of my friend in France, who was very anti-religion; his son had married a Catholic woman; they had had a child; this child was in my Grade-4 class; she had never been baptized; the mother was arguing with her husband at the diner talbe and saying that my friend should be baptized.
Finally, the old grand-father spoke up and said that in his family, they had always given children information on religion and atheism as they were growing up and were givent the choice at 14 to be baptized or not. To which my friend's mother replied :
"Yes, and that is why your whole family is not baptized!"
France's Revolution in 1789 resulted in a secularization of French society. That is why Muslim girls are required to remove their head scarves when they arrive in the school yard in France.
There are still many Catholics in France, but the Catholic Church does not have the power it had before the 1789 Revolution.
In the US, the belief in "separation of Church and State" is more a saying than something that is true. In fact, religion greatly influences the State in the US. In fact, the religious right has a lot of power in the US.
The religous right is the same group which is okay with Palestinians being shipped off to Jordan; the religious right is the same group which promotes moving embasies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. the religious right has a world view that shapes foreign policy in the US that results in the death of Palestinians.
This lone academic, this young man from California, this 43 year old historian, who promotes atheists as being good people also, is part of a predictable movement of reaction against the religious right in the US.
Sam, do you remember the US comedian George Carlin?
He was a very outspoken man who used a lot of bad language.
He had a different kind of humour.
He used humour and bad languae to get people to think.
At the end of his life, he spoke with more respect and used ideas to criticize.
Does Dr. Carrier use sarcasm and a few bad words to show his impatience with the power of the political and religious right in the US?
Yes.
Does he try to draw attentioni to doctrines and beliefs he honnestly feels are strange and damaging to freedom of though?
Yes.
Will he contrbute to US society becoming a bit more honest in its politico-religious dialogue?
I think he could.
I do not think that he will cause people to lose their faith. I think he may cause people to be more open-minded with respect to others who have different beliefs. That is a good thing.
