What were you before you became and atheist?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

is easier and closer to the actual intent, I think.

Oh now come on, that's just an example of a wishful prayer. You guys really should try to come down to earth a bit. Your heads are in the clouds.

Define "clouds".

[Jason]

Then what was your point there?

The origin of the Christianity stories geographically was the area of Israel. But Christianity's subsequent raison d'etre as a mass religion was to bolster the authority of Rome. I think it is to Rome's needs we should look for the cultural christianity we are discussing. Or more to the point, we should look to the needs of any authoritarian structure that is based on the Roman template of patriarchal authority: governments, churches, companies, broadcasting organisations, schools, families, universities, the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Rationalia (and many others).

Christianity existed long before it was forced upon the whole people of Rome, so its reason to be (raison d'etre)a mass religion could hardly be called Roman, let alone political. The fact that it was co-opted by Constantine in the midst of a Roman civil war to gain the support of the Romans already of a Christian persuasion is incidental. It was a political expedient, nothing more. There was also great resistance to the adoption of Christianity in the Roman empire, though that resistance was eventually crushed and the temples and places of worship for previously tolerated religions where destroyed - humorous if you consider the edict of Milan. The reason for Christianity to aspire to be a 'mass religion' is that it is part of its central beliefs, you might look at Matthew 28:19. Proselytizing and conversion is core to Christianity. This is one of the main reasons for Christianity's cancerous growth and why it was there for use as a political expedient for Constantine. There is no doubt that because of him Christianity went from being a persecuted sect to the state religion and so was availed of the freedom and opportunity to spread itself further, like a cancer spreading into lymph nodes, but it is and was not the reason it seeks and sought to do so.

So, with that little bit out of the way, what is it you're trying to argue? Christianity plays a necessary role in all authority structures, or maybe only in a certain type of authority structure? All authority structures need Christianity to grant them the right to govern? Maybe its broader? Perhaps your arguing that authority structures (or some types of them) require something in the nature of Christianity to prop themselves up?

Whatever the case, state it plainly then make your argument if you please. I have no desire to continue to play chase the sophist's tail.

ETA: Or, as I see, maybe you're just trying to attack the moderators and admins of this forum again.

[Schneibster]

Yes, I think religion has generally been, at least in part, an attempt to codify and enforce preexisting values and ideals which developed over time, while invoking a "higher authority", and with varying degrees of success during its history.

Religion has taken on a lot more than it was originally intended to do.

Originally, religion was a way for the people who knew when it was going to rain to make a living.

After a while, it took on morals; it was a way for people who didn't know each other to know about each others' ethics so they could engage in trade. Unfortunately, it destroyed ethics in order to do so, by imposing morals by fiat upon people who should be using ethics.

The children and the stupids need morals because they're not bright enough to figure out ethics. Intelligent adults should be using ethics.

It's been downhill ever since, burning people at the stake, torturing them, throwing babies into fires, and engaging in the worst kind of bigotry and oppression in the history of the world.

A person without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

[Schneibster]

Find me good reason to consider biblical writing as evidence.

Evidence of what? Objective fact? None. Evidence of cultural Christianity? Where else would you look?

You're making a point that is valid only if one accepts your premise that there is a god in the first place, and that it exists in conformation to biblical description... sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard, especially within the context of present discussion

Can you explain that? Why is it necessary to accept the premise that there is a God in the first place? How is that my premise anyway? What has mustard-cutting got to do with this? So many unanswered questions.

Typical fauxlosopher.

I stopped listening to fauxlosophy when they failed to deconstruct Derrida. I think they're afraid they'll vanish leaving a dark sticky spot and a bad smell.

[Schneibster]

You assume atheists are really closet believers. That's absurd.

It's OK, he's a fauxlosopher. They deal in the absurd.

[charlou]

From all the sterile and cranky arguing on this thread there emerges a topic which is actually quite interesting. Stripped of the preoccupation with "atheists don't really exist", the whole question of the degree to which our Christian-dominated past still affects aspects of our current society. Most in this thread accept that it does to a degree, even if in a fairly superficial way. It seems that Exi is suggesting the effects run deeper than most of us might accept.

There is a difference between how much this past religious influence effects aspects of social organisation such as government and law, and how much it affects one's persona, even if one has consciously rejected the need for a god or a religion.

I think this is a topic worth considering...

I think so too.

It's difficult to tease apart the aspects that are religious in nature from more general cultural influence that has evolved over time as humans have evolved as a species ..

I think this is because religion has evolved with us. We're an interesting combination of curious, manipulative, herdlike and superstitious animals. For religion to arise out of that and become a tool for social manipulation was inevitable.

I like Feck's description of christianity as a veneer over the preexisting culture ... made me think of how the aboriginal people of any land must feel about the arrogance of empire building invaders declaring the culture to be christian and imposing that on the original people. How ludicrous the veneer must look when viewed from the underside where the original culture still exists. Imagine, for example, that muslims forced their culture onto us in the same way christianity has been forced onto other cultures, and we have to live under islamic theocracy ... how many generations before we are completely absorbed by the new culture?

Uggg ... that wasn't a pleasant example, just the easiest one to try to convey the point.

[Schneibster]

Do you apply anything resembling the scientific methodology in formulating these ideas?

No, it's a philosophical discussion fauxlosophy.

[Schneibster]

So what, in your opinion, was he, before he existed?

If he was anything, he wasn't an atheist.

Sophistry Fauxlosophy, pure and simple.

[Schneibster]

the Bible, a heavily edited anthology of books collated in Rome, by Romans, for Romans.

Not only do you not know anything about science, you also don't know anything about history. Worst of all, you're discussing Christianity with no evident understanding of the origin of the Babble, nor of the fact that different denominations use different versions of it; the quickest example and most likely to be already known to most people is the Talmud.

Folks, arguing with this individual about religion is like arguing with a man deaf from birth about the difference between Beethoven and Bach.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

the Bible, a heavily edited anthology of books collated in Rome, by Romans, for Romans.

Not only do you not know anything about science, you also don't know anything about history. Worst of all, you're discussing Christianity with no evident understanding of the origin of the Babble, nor of the fact that different denominations use different versions of it; the quickest example and most likely to be already known to most people is the Talmud.

Folks, arguing with this individual about religion is like arguing with a man deaf from birth about the difference between Beethoven and Bach.

He doesn't even bother trying to make sense any more. Just posts.

[Tero]

If you read the NT in Greek, then...it's all Greek to me. Not Roman. Romans got virgins and young women mixed up. I think they knew what they had, in hand though. Them popes. Virgins.

[Robert_S]

It is a nice trolling tool, to associate everything you don't like with Christianity and/or theism.

[Schneibster]

Constantinople. Nicene Council. Which, BTW, did not determine the contents of the Babble; that came later.

Seriously, nothing of history. Nothing at all. Completely ignorant of it.

[Schneibster]

It is a nice trolling tool, to associate everything you don't like with Christianity and/or theism.

That's good for trolling nutjob religion boards, but tends to leave them with the impression that atheists don't know what they're talking about, and that gets boring. I prefer to point out where they've got their heads up their asses; it works better on atheist boards.

[Loki]

It is a nice trolling tool, to associate everything you don't like with Christianity atheism and/or theism secularism.

That's the religious version.

It's extremely common, it's bullshit and it sucks and it shows up the poster as a bigoted moron.

Atheists who use these tactics should understand they come across in exactly the same way.