Lol this quesiton is funny.
My teachers were hardcore biblical guys they didn't talk about evolution.
Most of them were academic so I am sure they did their own homework, however not something we discussed in class.

Similar to a class on evolution. If Christianity did come up it would only be for a moment of comic relief and then back to the real work of studying evolution.

I do take evolution seriously and do not mock it. I chose to make a thread about Christianity because that is what I know about. However I do plan to research evolution more completely along with the teachings of Hitchens and Sam Harris.

please don't read harris.

Just a pedantic point but I don't know that Hitch or Harris would approve of their work being called their "teachings". And Also I asked some questions earlier and you skipped it-just wanted to make sure you didn't miss it since you've responded to subsequent posts.

Why do you say this?

I refer you to this table of historical manuscripts found in order of number of manuscripts found.

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

The formulation of the New Testament was not a matter of several people writing down some cool ideas. There were thousands of historical manuscripts. There are more copies and partial copies of the New Testament than almost any other document of antiquity.

Why is Christianity less laughable than any other religion?
There are lots of reasons. One main reason is the origin of the Bible.
It was not found in a farmer's field as is true of the Book of Mormon.
It was not dropped from Heaven or delivered by an angel.
The New Testament manuscripts are first hand accounts of what happened in history. And there are many copies of these manuscripts.

Okay so your argument is that there is historical evidence of the veracity of the bible? Anything else? This is usually a really messy argument to get into, so I just want to check if this is the entire extent of why you believe as you do such that if it is demonstrated that this is grossly insufficient to believe in the veracity of the bible then you would accept that there is no evidence and thus should drop this irrational belief.

Wait, you'd advise against Harris but not Hitchens? I wouldn't advise against either but I'd def say if one had to go it would be Hitchens, and I love Hitch.

Do you not realize that the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of original manuscript evidence for the Bible in no way even implies slightly that virgins give birth, serpents talk, or that a man walked on water. That is not an argument for the veracity of Christian Dogma/theology/belief. No one would argue with the fact that there are a great deal of original manuscripts, but that demonstrates nothing.

i suppose the pre-moral landscape stuff is fine like letter to a Christina nation, but his attempts to evade the naturalistic fallacy annoy me and certainly don't represent orthodox atheist views. Hitchens should be read by everyone because such brilliant writers are so rare and whatever else one might say, he truly is a brilliant writer.

I agree, Hitchens is an incredible writer, probably my favorite of the last 10 years, I just don't think God is not Great is a good reflection of that. I'd never suggest someone choose Harris over Hitchens except for that genre.

Sorry I failed to respond to this post. I just didn’t know what to say.
Sin nature was just one example of how biblical teaching resonates with me. I don’t think it is based on personal experience in the same way as a visitation from an angel.
Another biblical concept that makes sense is the teaching around marriage. Being married it is nice to know that we both agree we shouldn’t sleep with other people. That is not to say we could never make a mistake. But the point is we both agree in principal on what is right (anyone could come to this conclusion without the Bible). The institution of marriage was not just a cultural phenomenon. Marriage is a covenant created by God. God created people and knows how their relationships will work in a way that is best.
Not sure if I answered your question.
I don’t see a massive leap in logic in what I am saying…. But please point it out if you like
TY

I agree that the existence of the manuscripts does not prove that their contents is true. However the existence of the manuscripts does provide empirical evidence and a starting point for Christianity to be based in fact. To say that thousands of original manuscripts demonstrates nothing is rash. Original manuscripts demonstrate that Christianity is based on actual historical documents (however far fetched the stories may seem).

As an aside:
What are the best books I should read re atheism/evolution.
As I guess this is the view point most of you have.

What do you want to get out of it?

Btw theism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. They are entirely separate things.

I want to understand what those teachings assert. I think I am objective enough to toss Christianity if it is wrong. obv. I dont think it is.

I also dont want to be an ignorant git that only cares about their own point of view.

You can't have good conversations if you are not even willing to understand someone elses point of view.

Yes I realize evolution and atheism are seperate concepts.

Of the "Big Four" books of that genre - The End of Faith by Harris, The God Delusion by Dawkins, God Is Not Great by Hitchens, and Breaking The Spell by Dennett, I don't think any one particular book really hits the nail squarely on the head tbh. Almost all of them except The God Delusion seem to be aimed much more at existing atheists/agnostics. For a full deconversion from Christianity I'd recommend (read in this order)

1. The Christian Delusion - John Loftus
2. Godless - Dan Barker (pretty similar to the Christian Delusion but covers some different ground)
3. Why I Am Not A Christian - Richard Carrier (not that Christian-specific, could apply to most monotheistic religions. Very short book too and is available for free online here)
4. God, The Failed Hypothesis - Victor Stenger (way longer and more robust/scientific version of Richard Carrier's approach)
5. [Take your pick from the "Big Four"]


For evolution I'd go with The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins and/or Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne as good introductory books.

Cool thanks.

Well for evolution, the canonical book is dawkings the selfish gene which, despite being a bit outdated, explains how evolution works to the layperson in an easy to understand manner.

For atheism, I personally like Bertrand Russell's various essays but they are not necessarily "easy". For a sort of historical view, there is a book called Doubt by Jennifer Hetch which traces the history of skepticism through the millenia that is is nice at demonstrating how widely humans have doubted the various orthodoxies of the day. I suppose the canonical "four horsemen" books of god is not great/letter to a christian nation/god delusion and the like are good, but they are written more to take a neutral or ambivalent person to a more anti-theist person than they are meant to convert a devout religious person. But there are probably better resources out there in other threads...

edit: my pony is the slowest pony of all

great thanks uke.
pony?

Seconded, I love Russell's essays and him being a fellow pipe smoker doesn't hurt either.

No worries. I can't say I like the 'God's nature' approach (which William Lane Craig takes) as it really only moves the problem to a different phrasing. Though William Lane Craig is a Divine Command Theorist, so his answer is clear as far as I'm concerned.

I find it interesting because when I was a Christian I was never in any doubt that the answer was that "God commands it because it is good". Divine Command Theory seems totally abhorrent and totalitarian to me, and makes concepts like omni-benevolence seem meaningless. But I appreciate your honest answer and look forward to further discussion with you

I always feel like I must be missing something with Hitchens, because I generally didn't find his stuff that interesting. I read God is not Great, and thought it was okay, but nothing really new or interesting. I've read a bunch of his articles on politics and I generally thought they were quite bad (I'll admit to be biased because I thought his stuff on the Iraq War was so poor). I've read a few of his essays on various writers, and they are okay, but usually not really much better (and sometimes worse) than you can get from a standard NYRB essay. Mostly, his writings seemed more polemical than really thoughtful--his style basically that of a provocateur and so I usually didn't find much insight.

But yet people seem to really love his writings. Maybe I just haven't read the right stuff...

Confessing seems just as much for self gain bs. Like the catholic confession boxes. wut? It's just as unfair that someone goes to heaven because they have been exposed to good Christians learned behaviour and behave like Christians, as it is to go to hell because someone has been exposed to sinners learned behaviour and behave like a sinner.

Well some of the stories are nice and the parables are very interesting/powerful on a psychological and philosophical level. But if the WHOLE thing is not logical. Then I can't believe it. IF the Authors had stated that alot is speculation and metaphor and had not adamantly suggested it is literally gods word then I could respect it alot more. But to me it seems like just one fault discredits the whole thing. The Bible/Jesus just seems like a very primitive/infective way of god reversing alot of damage supposedly done by satan. I'm more inclined to beleive the Q'ran as the moon was tore in half. Alot of stuff Jesus did could have been done by Derren Brown or some other illusive 'magician'. If I saw something like a moon getting split in half I'd believe. But my point still stands- it is false following Christian morals because of the fear of hell and only because of objectional logic. And I lust all the time. So I am screwed if I am wrong but I reckon I should be screwed either way. Would have cheated getting into heaven only because I knew I ad to behave in a certain manner. I just follow instint and cross my fingers god is not the Christian god. He may define me as immoral but I define him as immoral.

On a personal level do you truly agree with all morals or do you follow them because it says so?

Well there is a big difference between quality of writing and quality of his arguments. I frequently disagreed with him (for example, about the iraq war that you mentioned, but also about his general tone with regards to religion) but I did think his pieces were well written. Certainly they are polemical and provocative (a point about style more than content) and were not attempting to give the kinds of balanced approach that one finds in academia that identifies weakness in their own arguments or finds common ground. But leaving aside criticism of his actual arguments, and the general tone or style in which he presents them, I maintain that there are very few writers - certainly not with the kind of vanity fair audience he had - capable of writing with such eloquence. That said the couple chapters of God is not Great that I read were certainly far from his best work, but I continually enjoyed and was challenged (a key metric) by the slate pieces I read for a couple years before his death and certainly found myself better for the interaction.

Btw, just on the iraq topic because that really is the issue where he lost so much of his fan base, while I certainly disagree with him, he is one of the few pro-war supporters (along with the michael ignatieffs of the world) who were really defending the war on terms of a strong human rights basis, particularly for kurds and secular reformists within iraq, that didn't try to just hide problems of the Iran-Iraq war times under the matt and pretend the US was just this big knight in shining armour.

Oh so you are just another believer who thinks you actually know something but the reality shows the opposite. I love it that you claim to be some type of authority on Christianity. Don't you realize that every Christian has his own interpretation of his religion? They don't even bother reading the damn holy book. Their brain fills in the blanks and they create answers for themselves. Your response above tells me all I need to know about you. Like the rest of believers you are in denial of what actually evidence is there that debunks your claim that God is 100% consistent. Or are you going to argue that the Bible is ridden with mistakes which Jews and Christians made while compiling the books, making it obvious then that the books have zero approval from God on what should be written about him in the books that are meant to spread his message.