Yeah, there are definitely some pretty weird ass christians out there that need to chill out. (This is coming from a christian). You don't need to speak In an odd language, cry like a bitch and wave your arms around like an idiot to be a believer.

Oh, it's pretty darn real. It got Bush into office and told him to wage war on Islam.

The problem is that religions are something more than theism. They also include a group of dogmas as part of their own nature. We can remove more and more "layers" (like in an onion) until only theism remains. Or something similar to what Thomas Jefferson thought, for example. Or even return to Aristotle and the purest philosophical idea of God (you know, the "unmoved mover"...). But then it wouldn't be the same thing anymore. A Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim) is a theist, but a theist is not necessarily a Christian.

I don't believe theism is in the middle of the onion. Theism is a construct. I believe something as real as wind, love, trees, anger, and bricks is in the center. Pick your own label for it.


Of course. But people want to be right and get the upper hand. So they waste time debating it.

In the study of phallacies, this is called a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose one or the other, you can make up whatever name you want. Or you can get distracted.

what are phallacies? illogical dicks?

phreudian slip :p:

Tall tales ;)

This thread reminds me of a caller from the Loveline radio show who was guy talking about his piercings and happened to mention in passing that he was a Christian.

The host asks him what he thinks about the "your body is a temple" bit in the Bible. The guy replies that "I fully believe that my body is a temple and so I can choose to decorate it however I like".

You assume of course that wind, love, trees, anger, and bricks are also real. Just because you can't physically perceive something doesn't negate its existence. (or prove it I suppose).

This is the crux of the problem I think religions face when trying to claim that their belief systems reflect an actual reality. If a religion has no physical proof, or uses as evidence physical "proof" that could be explained in other ways (non-supernatural ways), then there really is no logical reason, I feel, to believe that one particular religion, or any religion at all, reflects the reality of the universe and its existence.

Since you are Unicorn, you might appreciate the logo created for atheism: The Invisible Pink Unicorn. This logo describes the problem with religions that base their purported reality on unseeable, unknowable entities:

I guess religion is faith- along with commitment to the tennents of that religion.
I'm not sure why but for some reason mankind, unlike any other organism is aware of the existence of something not physically perceivable. Perhaps its just the fact that we can rationalize, we can ask the question "why am I here?" and our imagination allows us to develop "gods". But considering the beggining of human history as we are aware of it has been laced with the belief of the supernatural, it's odd to me that we evolved into something and now we need to evolve back out of it.

Of course there are things that we experience day to day that are equally unexplainable- like love. You can describe biologically what occurs when the "feeling" towards something(or someone) hits, we describe and observe the consequences of love on people and those around them, we all know what kind of irrational decision making comes about with love; I don't know that we can Explain it.

That prob doesn't make much sense, but to put it simply I guess what I believe is that religion and the belief in a higher power is what makes us human, it seems to be a prominent trademark to the species.

Anyhow, my two cents!

I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And Discordianism is not a parody religion... it's also not not a parody religion...

Well technically, Unicorn, some other animal species besides humans pass tests that suggest they are aware that others have minds (which aren't physically perceivable). Crows, for example, hide things when other crows are *not* watching, suggesting they are aware that other crows do not automatically know what they know. Human children fail this test until around age 3, after which time they start to realize that others have minds distinct from their own. So, humans appear to be one of a number of animal species that are aware of the existence of something not physically perceivable.

As for love, I feel that evolutionary biology explains quite well the bonding purpose love serves, allowing individuals who experience love to increase the likelihood that their children will survive to reproductive years, passing on the genes for the ability to love. Many animals, including humans, appear to experience the bonding and joy associated with their oxytocin levels rising due to the presence of a loved-one. Yes, love certainly can cause apparently irrational decision-making! Isn't it great? ;)

But I feel the following bigger question can't be answered, and I agree with you about that: why is there any sensation or experience of being alive at all, including the experience of loving?

Also, I agree that people who believe in supernatural beings or in some universal "goodness" probably do so primarily because of "faith," not because of amazingly convincing proof. This is probably the main reason Christianity emphasizes having faith: the logical proof for the Bible's claims (or any religion's claims) is scanty. If the truth of a religious belief system such as Christianity were obvious, then the religion wouldn't have to keep on promoting having "faith," or trying to scare people into believing they can only obtain everlasting life if they believe Jesus is the son of a god.

I definitely agree that humans show a great creative ability and we love making up stories...but since I've never believed in any religion or higher power, I wouldn't say that belief in those make us human, though perhaps the capacity for such belief does. I am an empty vessel in that regard, though. :D

I like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Cardboard Adolescent! But, alas, I am not a believer in Her, either! :(

The title of the thread is How real is Christianity?, and using that question as a starting point, I have to say that Christianity is very real. It's reality as an organized religion and a socio-political force is manifested daily in the lives of most of the inhabitants of the westernized world, whether we are capable of directly observing it, or not.

If, however, we instead ask the question How much validity is there to Christianity?, then there is still some ambiguity to the question. Are we talking about pre - American fundamentalist Christianity? Do we separate the Pentateuch from the rest of the Old Testament, and that from the New Testament when examining the Holy Bible as a religious text containing truth? Do we apply a literal interpretation to the mythological stories in Genesis of Creation, The Fall ,and The Great Flood, all of which are mythological archetypes that pre-date even the earliest of Old Testament writings? There are a myriad of questions beyond these regarding a the validity of the Judeo-Christian faith.

If we open our scope a bit wider to deal with Theism in general, there are also many questions that beg an answer. When you say "God" are you referring to the same ineffable concept as I am when i say "God"? How can we have a proper discourse on the subject if we do not know with any real certainty that we are referring to the same thing. If there is one god, as intimated in monotheism, then doesn't it stand to reason that any theistic religion, including polytheism, is communicating its own unique understanding of the same entity? Again, there are again many questions beyond these to address at this level as well.

If you widen the scope even further and speak of spirituality in general, there are still more questions to be asked. Can spirituality and humankind's apparent desire to have an awareness of that which is perceived to be divine point to an intrinsically human, even biological need to have communion with that which is perceived to lay beyond ourselves? Can we as rational human beings reasonably engage in an act of rational, objective observation when quantum physics has shown us that the mere act of observation has a direct effect on that which is being observed? Is there a single unified and pervasive force that is connected to our consciousness, as well as all living and non-living things, which allows us through a conscious act of directed intention (i.e. faith) to manifest the product of our mind into physical realm, thus equating to our own beliefs creating our own reality? There are many valid questions beyond these which that must be answered before coming to a definitive conclusion about the nature of absolute reality.

We place a lot of emphasis on being logical and rational human beings capable of utilizing our own reason for the sake of making essential discernments regarding the nature of reality, but a quick glance at the true essence of human nature, namely the illusory quality of human thought and observation is reflective of us being anything but reasonable and rational, and the reality of Christianity is only one way in which this is manifested in our world.

What quantum mechanics shows (this might be pedantic, but I think there's a profound truth hidden here somewhere) is that what we thought of as "observation" is really interaction. It's not really that observation changes the state of what's observed, but that observation is the result of that change in state. A photon interacts with an atom, causing the atom and the photon to change states, and then that photon interacts with another atom, causing the state of that atom and the photon to change again. Observation is just that change of states, all of a sudden a point in my vision that was red is green. Where is the observer? The observer is everywhere and nowhere, but everything that is physically present is a field in constant flux. There is no point in that field that we could call "the observer," just various points that are interacting with all the other points.

The "measurement problem," the notion that we can't know what a particle is really doing because we change it by shooting light at it, is kind of like going up to a meditating monk, shaking him out of his meditation, and asking, "what are you feeling?" It's only a problem because there's a mistake inherent to the approach itself.

"There is no way to the father but by me"

The most misunderstood phrase in western civilization

No. It's not something I saw, it was something I felt.