Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is being challanged in this edit? The the quoted material was actually asserted, or that the assertion is correct? If the later, I think the place to challange it is at the original source of the quote. HeartGold tx 09:03, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, MM, for this edit. I concur. HeartGold tx 09:32, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I have reinserted the following with HG's comment in quotes --- Although Christianity has been responsible for many deaths a Christian apologist recently justified this saying, "The number of people killed in the name of Christianity pales in comparison to the number of people killed in the name of atheistic ideologies such as communism (Mao, Stalin)."---- --Bob_M (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

It would be interesting to analyze, based on percentage of population, how the crusades and inquisition and pogroms compared to Naziism and Stalinism. I don't pretend to know the answer.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 12:59, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I guess it would. If I remember my history correctly the 100 years war should count in there too.--Bob_M (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
You might make a case for the Thirty Years War, but hardly the 100 Years one. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:18, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Do we get to count all religious wars/killing as "the other side" to compare the "atheist" killers to? Or only Christianity? humanbe in 17:23, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

God only knows.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:43, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
And then you have all the people killed through Acts of God. This could get complicated. We may need to form a committee or something. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:02, 3 July 2007 (CDT)


Should we be clear that this has nothing to do with Armenia so it doesn't get corrected and recorrected forever? humanbe in 23:06, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Good call. I thought it was in fact referring to the Armenian Church. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 03:35, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, me too, but I figured if someone corrected it back to "i" they must have a reason, so I looked it up on WP. And added the footnote to prevent future confusion. humanbe in 13:21, 4 September 2007 (CDT)


Just a little background info; I've been a lurker here for a while now. I like to laugh at CP so naturally this wiki suits me fine, lol. I'm sure I'll end up making an account here. Anyway, I just wanted to say how distressing it is to be Christian with so many fundies and pentacostals running around. See, I accept hard evolution as fact; I believe you can be an upstanding human being whether you have any sort of faith or not, whether its the same I have or not. Though I personally believe in God, and at the very least I view Jesus as having been, if nothing else, a man with a good idea and lessons to follow. But, not only do I not take the Bible literally, I go so far as to wonder if anything of it is really relevant anymore AT ALL. And anything of real value in it, are best taken as metaphors and symbols rather than, excuse the pun, "bible and verse" (I'm a major fan of Ecclesiastes). Basically, everything warped and extreme about Christianity that makes some people condemn it in its entirety is completely absent in me. While I am not a hard "liberal" I sure as hell am not what most would consider a "conservative" except maybe as far as my personal finances are concerned lol, but I digress... I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with homosexuals. I don't think everyone who is not Christian or as if that somehow isn't good enough, is not "born again" (which is ridiculous, that's what baptism is anyway, you don't need it a second freakin time as if you need it at all but then im rambling again...) is condemned to "Hell" (which in the classic sense I do not believe in...). And not only do I not feel the need to proselytize and evangelize, I do feel that such actions are NOT wise, and I highly doubt Christ would want me to shove my views down everyone's throat in some hypcritical act to "save them" when in truth it would just be to make myself look good. As it is with the vast majority of fundies. I am of the turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, a time for every purpose kind. I sincerely feel that were Jesus to be here today, He would not be doing and saying anything these fundies and pentacostals would expect of Him. In fact I'm quite certain they would be in for a stern chastisement.

Oh and as an aside, I am absolutely in love with the concept of a seperation between church and state. Best idea man has has in all of history if you ask me. I am against official prayer in public schools, though if any student wants to pray for whatever while in the building, he should not be stifled, no matter his faith, that is of course that his prayer doesnt somehow harm another,, i mean actual harm. But any genuine prayer wouldn't anyway. I do not run aroud screaming "America is a Christian nation!" It certainly is NOT, re: seperation between church and state, and we are much the better for being a secular state rather than a theocracy. And just to add some icing to the cake, I think the whole concept of homeschooling is flawed at best, dangerous and insane at worst.

So I guess my point is, as a logical and rational person with a flair for humanism and a scientific mind and yet a Christian at the same time, I am saddened that there are those out there, certain fundies and pentacostals, that have so maligned my faith that other perfectly rational and logical human beings like me take a dim view to my faith, even though I share nothing with those that carry a warped and disfigured version of it; that it seems as if "normal" Christians like me are made to pay for the trespasses of others. -Signed, John, "JRos83" on CP, currently on my third block there. Christian (Lutheran, ELCA, not those crazy Missouri Synod types lol), rational and logical. Moderate. Loves people.

EDIT: Yay, I made an account! So here is the proper four tilde signature! Jros83 05:51, 12 December 2008 (EST)

cut from page[edit]

Various Christians addressed at Rational Wiki

Surely there is a category we could use for the many xtians with articles? Or perhaps it even exists? If so, we could just link to the cat. And that's the sensible way to do it (or a dynamic nav template that lists them all). ħumanUser talk:Human 22:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

That is what I was hoping for, cause this seems a dumb place to put these "small" or "insignifcant" pastors, but there are a host of them that have one liner pages with nothing really directing anyone to the page or from the page. (hint, I found these two in the "special page, orphans" and wanted to stick them somewhere, so the pour souls aren't just left to sit in a wiki and never be found....--EnAttendantGodot 22:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Might want to look for a good cat for them, first - there's probably a subcat under category:christianity, or should be. Perhaps there could even be a page listing "minor xtian figures" or some such to cleanly de-orphan them? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)
There is category:christians by the way. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:27, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Ah good, my tomorrow project! — Unsigned, by: EnAttendantGodot / talk / contribs
 :) ħumanUser talk:Human 01:35, 17 February 2009 (EST)


I got confused in the edit comment... SDA is not universalist (i was thinking anihilationist). But, for instance, some unitarian and quaker sects are. It's not fair to marginalize them because it's not inline with a particular author's flavor of Christianity and I don't think we need to get into a beard fallacy here. Neveruse513 12:45, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

What I mean is, if you thought you had only to become a Christian once and be saved forever, you could then logically act as violently or irreligiously as you wanted and there would be no comeback, no damnation, no consequences. The fact that people do not do this shows that the doctrine is more complex than the article currently suggests.--ConservapediaRoolz 12:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
More than enough universalists disagree. Neveruse513 12:53, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
It's not arguable that the number of universalists compared to the overall number of christians is relatively 'few'. How about "few Christians"? Because "few if any" is disingenuous. Neveruse513 12:58, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


The section on the Crusades is facile. They were fought primarily for economic and political reasons, with religion involved partly as a convenient pretext and partly because it was involved with everything at that time. I tried to indicate the complexity of the issue with a qualifying sentence at the end of the section, but was reverted by Neveruse. Sorry, Neveruse, but the current situation is nothing like how religious and temporal office were commingled during that period.--ConservapediaRoolz 12:46, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

It's funny, because we do many economic and political things under the guise of religion. I could have sworn someone said invading Iraq was a mission from God...but yeah, it's nothing like that, is it? We'll need another opinion. Neveruse513 12:50, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did.
At the time of the Crusades, the Pope didn't just rule the Vatican, he ruled large parts of Italy and had hudge armies at his disposal. Furthermore, his power extended into every other Christian country because if he fell out with people, he could excommunicate them and damn them to hell. Because the office held this power, Popes came from the most ruthless members of noble families who politicked and climbed over each other to get the office - they were not primarily religious people. The same thing happened with bishops and cardinals all over Europe to a lesser degree. This ingrained unity between religious office and actual power is a long way from one politician believing that his religion guides his moral compass, and is, as I stated before I was reverted, all but unthinkable in today's world.--ConservapediaRoolz 12:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Would you agree that religious and temporal power are intertwined in America today? Neveruse513 13:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
No. A lot of people in government are religious, but they have no religious power. That is to say, they can't appoint bishops, pronounce on doctrine, excommunicate people, or anything like that.--ConservapediaRoolz 13:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
It is very difficult to deny that religion and temporal are intertwined. Can you somehow evidence your position? All I can find is GWB saying God told him to go on a Crusade against terrorism (oh ya, and for oil...). Neveruse513 13:24, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Can you honestly deny the de facto required Christianity of the President of the United States? How does that not make them intertwined? Neveruse513 13:27, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes I can deny it. Before Obama, I expect a lot of people would have said a black candidate would never be elected. And you are missing my main point, which is that people with temporal power, however religious as individuals, hold no authority within religious organisations.--ConservapediaRoolz 13:33, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
I think you're missing the point that I can imagine this and that our wars of conquest/glory/peace of mind/etc are carried out partially under the guise of religion. To say it is unimaginable is ludicrous. Also, please look up de facto. There has been a de facto requirement that is obvious. Neveruse513 13:35, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Neveruse, as much as I dislike the power Christianity holds over our government, saying that our leaders have Religious authority is wrong and backwards. Xianty *may* (depending on the leader and which xianity) hold authority over them, but no President or Member of Congress at large is now or ever has been in a position of authority over Christianity. Maybe I'm missing your point, and i do agree that Christianity and Political power are intertwined in teh US, ConsevR is correct that it is not a formal relationship.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov» 13:47, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, WfG. Can you look at the revision in question and propose something?

I was never intending to imply that I thought religion had no influence on Government. However, to suggest that the relationship resembles the situation in the time of the Crusades is laughable - you'll notice, for example, that local pastors are not currently empowered to levy tithes on your earnings to support their churches' good works. The article as it stands suggests that the Crusades were undertaken entirely for religious reasons, which is wrong: the truth is (predictably) much more complex.--ConservapediaRoolz 14:04, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

One of the problems you both have, is in understanding (or rather, defining) what government is, and what a democracy is, and the roles of kings and their non-landowning sons, and the benefits that the church at large gained from the crusades both in "back home" in terms of support for the church, as well as being united in a cause against a very very rich country. There was, without doubt a very important aspect to the crusades that exists purely on the level of "we are right, we are christian, and we are obligated to please our Lord above". There was also lots and lots of money. I think the problem both of you are having is that this is a one paragraph blurb that probably should be a page in itself, fleshed out and argued over -- the religious aspects highlighted, the reasons modern xians want to do revisionism over who decided to go to war and what the real role of the church was, etc. It is truly one of the most ugly times for Christianity, but I can see where in 1 paragraph, none of that, or the associated counter to that will come to light. Just my long winded $.02.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov» 14:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
My contention is that it's not very hard for me to imagine..."we are right, we are christian, and we are obligated to please our Lord above" is almost word for word GWB.
So are you suggesting that we leave the paragraph as-is and take care of it in Crusades? Neveruse513 14:22, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Neveruse - I agree, it is very GWB. he was so intertwined with the Christian Right (a very particular aspect of Christianity) that he had daily calls with various religious leaders to "check" what he was doing, and in fact made public statements about "talking with god". But the difference here and with the Crusades, is that we are (supposed to be) a democracy, and he neither speaks for Christianity, nor does he have the legal right (again, "in theory") to use his religion as a motivation for war. As for the paragraph, were it me, I'd jump on the great topic and go make a page on the Crusades. You know it, you both have opinions on it. It would be a good resource for WP,e tc.  :-)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov» 14:55, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
We have been getting away from the point of this page, which is to discuss improvements to the article. The article as it stands states that the Crusades were waged in order to try and bring about the Second Coming of Christ by driving the heathen from Jerusalem. This is incorrect - it may even be parody. Like all wars, the Crusades were fought because powerful people wanted to increase their power - the religious element follows from the time's overlap between religious and earthly authority, which, excuse me, was far and away greater than it is today.
Regarding the role of religion in today's government, yes it does have influence, but only as a lobby group just like the business lobby, the environmental lobby, and many others. Regarding the de facto requirement for the President to be Christian:
  1. I don't think it's anywhere near as strong as the de facto requirement for him/her to be wealthy. The US is much more of a plutocracy than it is a theocracy.
  2. It's only a requirement to be aligned with a church - Obama is a Christian, but isn't defined by his Christianity and probably won't be bringing dogma into policy a great deal.--ConservapediaRoolz 07:56, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
I think that People don't Always Remember that Obama is a Committed Christian President.--Tolerance 14:00, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
The idea that the crusades happened primarily for economic reasons is one that was rather popular a few decades ago among certain materialist historians who couldn't quite wrap their minds around the idea of 'faith' as a significant motivation. However, it completely falls apart when you look at it closer. The crusades were not fought by or even on behalf of "landless sons" or "poor knights" or whatever else one might think up. They were funded and executed by some of the wealthiest and most powerful nobles of Europe, such as Robert of Flanders, Godfrey of Bouillon, Roger of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, and later, of course, by the Emperor and the kings of England and France. I can guarantee that these people did not care at all about poor knights, and if they had younger sons that needed land, they could just give them a piece of land, or arrange for them to receive a fief or a bishopric somewhere.
Another thing is that going on a crusade was ridiculously expensive, and many of the crusaders had to outright mortgage their holdings to afford it. It just doesn't make sense why these people spent such extreme amounts of money on moving an army halfway across the known world when they could just as easily, and much more economically, have used it to beat up their neighbour and take his land instead. The religious motivation, on the other hand, makes perfect sense if you remember that the early crusades were understood by contemporaries as simply a 'peregrinatio in armis' - an armed pilgrimage. Religion is not just a pretext here, it was the fundamental reason for the whole project.
And by the way, I'm also afraid that ConservapediaRoolz may be slightly overestimating the power of the 11th-12th century Papacy. There is such a thing as the Investiture conflict, after all. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 21:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for your well-informed and thoughtful input to this discussion - I admit I'm no expert and may well have been mistaken.
The Crusades section still irks me though, perhaps because it comes across as an unfair attempt to attack modern-day Christianity. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made, but bringing up the Crusades is cheap, unhelpful and misguided. The driving force behind the religious aspect of the Crusades wasn't doctrine, it was zeal, which can be exhibited by people of any faith or none and is not specific to Christianity.--ConservapediaRoolz 14:16, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Bon blessed us with this (and overwrote the article with their brilliangz)[edit]

"Wow, your entire article was devoted to bashing Christianity, typical. Well[,] I know I am going to get banned from your shitty little site for this but you guys are a bunch of atheistic, communist, degenerate, morons who would destroy humanity if you were in power. Thank God that despite your propaganda the general population sees you as the nutjobs you really are. Despite the fantasy you live atheism is irrational, destructive bullshit. Nor does atheism = science which some of you morons seem to think. Hell Conservapedia is about 100% more accurate than this garbage and I will admit that Conservapedia is not a great source (besides for their article on atheism which hits the nail right on the head) Hell[,] EncyclopediaDramatica is more accurate than the pro-liberal, pro-atheist, pro-socialist, pro-homosexuality, anti-Christian, anti-theist, anti-conservative, and immoral nonsense you have on this website. I mean[,] how do you morons figure that gays don't have equal rights unless we redefine marriage for them and go ahead and support their "gay pride" nonsense?

Let[']s see how fast one of your radical leftist stormtroopers catches this. He will save the day and allow you to keep drinking Obama's kool-aid." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Saved for the Posterior by your loyal correspondent, Huw-man. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Did I get all the commas? --Prim arthropleura.jpg 18:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Weren't we going to save these gasping rants in a special place? Ranting hall of fame or something like that?--Bobbing up 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but it was too much trouble. Saving on the talk page was easy. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Who did this?[edit]

Alright, I did vandalize this article. I admit it. I'm just trying to make a point here.

I am a christian, and this is a complete joke. This is made by someone who made absolutely no research into the bible. I have never handled snakes, I do not hate homosexuals (I do disaprove of their lifestyle), I do not go door-to-door (where did you get this?), I have never babbled-in-tongues, I do not roll back and forth with my eyes rolled back in my head (utter lie. completely made-up libelous garbage).

And I do listen to heavy metal music, I have sinned, and I do read Harry Potter. I must be going to Hell!

Nope. I am completely sure of my faith, and I am in a dedicated relationship with God. I am sure I am going to heaven.

btw. Homer and Bart Simpson are not reliable sources, much less real people!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

And your point is? Some/most of us think that such beliefs are actually more fictional than our favorite cartoon characters. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC) That is called snark. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but thank you for actually chiming in here. Perhaps you would even like one of our complimentary (but anonymous) accounts? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Awww this wiki is a treasure trove of lulz... MarkeDC (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

His point is you shouldn't condemn every single Christian alive for the idiocy of the fundies... It's insulting to those of us who otherwise have no issue with all other fact presented at this wiki. such as evolution for just one very easy example. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Mistaken Statement[edit]

"Jesus Himself made contradictory pronouncements on the matter, one day saying that people 'need only put their faith in me', and the next telling a rich man that he had to sell everything he owned to be saved."

This wasn't contradictory. The rich man that came to Jesus was under the impression that he had lived a perfect life and completely and totally obeyed every Jewish law, which, if he had, would have indeed qualified him to be saved. Jesus, however, was implicitly pointing out the man's main vice by telling him to sell everything he had, which he wasn't willing to do. The point was to get it across to him that he wasn't as perfect as he thought he was without saying it to his face. 05:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But Jesus chased that by drawing a generalization and a comparison with camels going through the eyes of needles... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
And then pointed out right after that a camel going through a needle is not beyond God's ability, reinforcing the idea that people need God for salvation and cannot be perfect on their own like the rich man was trying to do. 05:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken Statement[edit]

This entire article is so poorly written it's hysterical. Really. I mean, take the most hard hearted article from the most vicious atheist blog and most of it has better scholarship than this. And that's WITH the bias. A rationally based opinion is still just an opinion. But at least you can add some proper facts. But I guess I'm wasting my time. Heck, even the James Randi article is pretty limp and he's a skeptical icon with a well known biography.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

My kind of Christian[edit]

This section's been here quite a long time, & I think it has some merit, although obviously it's not entirely serious. I reckon it should still be in the article somewhere, or possibly elsewhere (fundamentalism? Christian fundamentalist?). WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all good points, but it's written like a rant. I would rewrite it entirely, and probably put it elsewhere in the article. It's not really right for the lead. -- Mei (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I like it as a rant, but agree maybe not best placed in the intro. Maybe as a section somewhere further down, with "Christian fundamentalism" as section title, a {{main}} link for the CF article, & then the rant as it is. That could work. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm on it! -- Mei (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Turns out Christian fundamentalist is a redirect and 'Christian fundamentalism' doesn't exist. I linked to fundamentalism for the {{main}} thing. -- Mei (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what the heck is this doing here?[edit]

Christianity is the belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie who can give us eternal life if we symbolically eat his flesh and blood and telepathically tell him that we accept him as our lord and master so he can remove an evil force present in all humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from an apple tree.

This is copied almost verbatim from a religion troll picture from freaking /b/. The only major difference is that the sarcastic "makes perfect sense" has been omitted. What, my dear friends, is this paragraph doing here?

I should probably mention that it would take a Spanish Inquisition to get me to say Christianity makes enough sense to believe it, but this is not how a rational person deals with irrational ideas. Ridicule does not distinguish between true and false. It only serves to make people feel ashamed of holding an idea, whether it's reasonable or not. (And it shouldn't surprise anyone that there's another picture in the same format presenting atheism as something incredibly silly.) Fyrius (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Snark is in common usage on RationalWiki. If you want to add something similar to the atheism article, then by all means do so. And like the article itself says, if you want a sensible overview of Christianity, then go to Wikipedia. Bondurant (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That would miss the point. I have even less interest in adding something derisive to the atheism article than I have in keeping this here. In the Christianity-atheism debate, I'm very much on the side of atheism. But I'm first and foremost on the side of rational thought. I had the impression the same goes for this wiki.

Not to mention that two stupidities on opposing sides may balance each other out in terms of intelligence, but we should be trying to raise the bar on sanity anywhere we can, not lower it to equal levels.

Another thing I should mention is that I'm a newbie here, and I'm still trying to decide whether this is a community for sincere rationalists or just another agreement hive for reciprocal back patting. If it's the latter, then by all means point and laugh at your intellectual opponents as much as you want, but without me. Fyrius (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems to swing between seriousness and snark (mostly the former, to be fair), and looks like it's been cobbled together. In some other instances on this wiki, we have divided some articles into snark and serious versions, and this could be done here.
Another problem might be that the text you've highlighted is a direct copy, and may be subject to copyright. If so, it should definitely be removed, unless the person who added it is the original author. Bondurant (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more worried if that text was the opening of the article, but yes, we should at least have a reference to the original if this has indeed been quoted from elsewhere. Fyrius, on the subject of your decision to stay or go: I've alerted our senior admins who are at this very moment meeting with the executive branch of RationalWiki to either persuade you to stay, and failing that they'll formulate a plan that would allow us to somehow live without your presence.
Seriously though, you've some valid points about the article, and I'm glad you mentioned that text. However, the ultimatum you present is entirely your own business and personally I'd give more of a toss if you didn't come in with canons blazing. If you want to engage and help improve things then your help is appreciated, but at least edit for a couple of months before threatening to leave and never return. That's the more traditional approach, and at least by that point someone may care. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 14:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote may be snarky but it's also accurate. Jaxe (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bondurant: Granted, most of the article is fine. That's why I'm objecting just to this one paragraph, which in my opinion crosses the boundary between seriousness and blatant trolling.

Maybe moving the snarky parts to a "Fun:" namespace page would be an improvement. At any rate I think it would be an improvement to get this particular paragraph out of this article.

@ConcernedResident: You're right, as a threat my leaving doesn't have a lot of weight. Kindly think of my decision-making not so much as an ultimatum and more as a fresh eyes assessment of whether or not there is something seriously wrong with the level of intellectual honesty on this site. (And yes, I do have one heck of an attitude for a newbie. Noted.)

@Jaxe: Like hell it is. It's optimised to be maximally ridiculous. Christians don't believe Jesus is a zombie, they don't believe there's any telepathy involved and most of them I know don't believe in talking snakes.

Side note on the copyright issue: I don't think anyone will have a problem with that, though. /b/ can be described as a Darwinian meme pool of pictures and texts its anonymous users copy and repost all the time, where content is successful if people think it's worth reposting, and most of it is made or adapted just for that. I expect this picture was intended to be in the public domain. At any rate it would be impossible to find the original author, or for the original author to prove they're the one who made it. Fyrius (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your link to /b/ above - should it be pointing to our article on Don't feed the troll?Bondurant (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
On the zombie - well, he is a sort of reanimated dead person. And prayer - in which many Christians believe - is a sort of thought transference thing. And lots of creationists believe in the talking snake. But we should credit the copyright is some way I think.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bondurant: Yup. "Troll" is the common nomenclature for the sort of people you'll find on /b/. (This is not intended as criticism of that place. It's simply a place where people go to troll each other - for example with pictures like that one up there.)

@Bob: Yes, I know, the ideas are sort of similar. The point is that it's ridiculing the religion, and ridicule is irrational. And I believe it encourages irrationality. Fyrius (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(To avoid digression, for further questions about /b/, please refer to this Wikipedia article.) Fyrius (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) -

Well, we tend to use humour a lot around here. And if something seems to be ridiculous we do have a tendency to ridicule it - whether it be homoeopathy, religion or perpetual motion machines. Also looking at the nutshell it does rather cover Christianity rather well. Two of the most important elements in Christianity are "the fall" and then the "virgin birth death and resurrection of Jesus" and it gets both of them.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I found it quite amusing. There is no RationalWiki guideline I know of that says we have to be po-faced about everything. And I'm sure even some Christians would see the funny side of it. Bondurant (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, hence the name. Nothing irrational about that. The quote just describes Christian beliefs without all the mumbo-jumbo religious terminology. Prayer and telepathy are essentially identical, they both involve communicating by purely thinking. The same goes for pretty much every other religious word, i.e miracles are indistinguishable from magic, blessings are indistinguishable from spells, 'personal relationships with god' are indistinguishable from imaginary friends. Jaxe (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, it says: "symbolically eat his flesh and blood". Is that correct? I've been at WP -Transubstantiation at WP and I'm still not sure.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think some people believe the Eucharist is literally converted into His Flesh and Blood when the priest says the spell over it. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Come on, people, are we forgetting SPOV? Tetronian you're clueless 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
See: Forum:On ridicule. --BobSpring is sprung! 17:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I don't know if this place has a problem with profanity, so excuse me if I committed a faux pas by dropping an F-bomb up there in the title.) Fyrius (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with profanity is if someone walking past your computer at work can see it. We just discussing the limits of NSFW yesterday. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What are they gonna say? "You can surf only sites without profanity." Acei9 10:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The thing about ridicule is that when something is so manifestly ridiculous as gOD creating everything and then breaking off a part of itself and torturing it, what is there to do but ridicule it. The whole thing's so ... barmy that it's not worthy of serious comment. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 10:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
@Toast: Please don't think that way. Ever.
What is there to do but ridicule it? Argue against it with dry reason. I believe this is what rationality is about; letting the arguments speak for themselves, so to speak. There can be no idea so ridiculous that reason cannot deal with it.
And I dare say, there can be no idea so ridiculous that you can conclusively dismiss it without first listening to what its adherents have to say for themselves, without putting yourself at risk of making the wrong assessment. Sometimes reality is absurd. Scientific findings too are often counter-intuitive, just because we have brains adjusted to a hunter-gatherer life.
There are people out there who believe space has five or more dimensions, or that space can be "bent" by heavy things, or that time may not pass equally fast everywhere. Ridiculous, right? It's also probably true. And I think it would be no trivial task to tell such scientific barminess apart from pseudoscientific barminess or religious barminess, without actual rational evaluation of what case that can be made for each.
Also, kindly read what's been said on Forum:On ridicule. Fyrius (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For Fuck's Sakes whatever happened to all the fun in the world??? The selection is fun, it's funny, and it uses humour as a means by which to get at some of the fundamental problems with a problematic belief system. If that bit of snark made up the entirety of the article, you might have a point, but most of the article goes on to --in a still fun way -- reasonably and rationaly discuss and dissect Christian beliefs and practices. Sure, there might be room for more of that, and I invite you to develop that sort of thing. but removing the joke would be entirely against the character of the wiki--something you haven't been here long enough to ask us to do... P-Foster (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For Jake, Bob and my dear Susan, religion might look ridiculous to you, but to say that the rational point of view is that religions are ridiculous is not correct, in my opinion. As such, it shouldn't be Rationalwiki's point of view either. And no, I don't know what's the relevance of what I'm saying. Editor at CPmały książe 12:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion is wrong. P-Foster (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually I'd agree with editor about whether "ridiculous" is a rational term or not. I'd guess that from a rational point of view they are simply things for which there is no evidence (like fairies, ghosts and goblins). Meanwhile Fryius refers to things which are weird but for which there is evidence. On a personal level, I've got no problem with referring to things which are both weird and without evidence as ridiculous. And I'd have no problem seeing it here.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As Sagan pointed out, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Things like evolution and quantum mechanics are no doubt quite absurd at first glance. (My cousins an oak tree?) But these extraordinary ideas have the extraordinary evidence required to believe in them. Religion on the other hand... Jaxe (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Using ridicule to question religion, or indeed anything else, has a long history and is called satire. Having the religious object to this also has precedents - remember the fuss about The Life of Brian? Jack Hughes (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Did I hear that wrong or did someone just assume I'm a religious person? I think I'm in the top tenth percentile of most militant atheists in the Netherlands. Fyrius (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. Zombies hunger for human flesh/brains. There is no evidence of Jesus eating human flesh. Don't straw man Jesus.
  2. The "cosmic Jewish zombie" shtick is OLDMEME and not original or cool. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Not so hard on the zombies. Do they all eat human flesh?--BobSpring is sprung! 13:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(Headcrab zombies don't.) Fyrius (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The zombies of Haitian myth don't eat meat at all - if they do they remember who thay are and return to their graves. All this brain-eating stuff is from crap Italian horror movies. there should be a campaign for real zombies to put right these distortions. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
@Fyrius - My comment on the religious objecting to satire aimed at religion wasn't directed at you as much as Editor at CP who, is, I believe, a Christian. However, my point still stands, satire has a long history as a tool to be used to poke fun at, and hence expose, the irrationality of sacred cows both religious and political. What is more because it is more accessible it is often more effective than 'rational argument'.
Furthermore, because eventually all religions come down to a magic man in the sky in my view they are all inherently ridiculous. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Satire is good for opening debates on issues commonly considered undebatable, I'll give you that. Fyrius (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was god" The word is later identified as Jesus, so he was actually first, and created everything. God the Father is a complicated way to avoid doing his own mother so he can be properly born. Dunno where the holy spirit comes from , but the only unforgivable sin is to disrespect him/it. Catholics have overcome the problem of eating Gods dead body by the miracle of Transubstantiation. This neatly avoids the use of human sacrifice to provide the meat and blood each day they hold services. They havent had good marketing advice ot you would have the choice of spicy, barb-e-q, or original recipe Jesus bits. Does anyone find it odd that the flesh of Jesus tastes like a cracker and his blood like a very cheap port ? Hamster (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! But how do you know that human flesh doesn't taste like that? And do they really use port?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I hesitated to edit something that had already had so much written about it so soon after making my account. This section is a humorous statement which hints at the reasons many atheists find Christianity irrational, but without some context, I'm not sure it's wholly in accord with the Community Standards, even given the encouragement of snark: "Our official policy on religion is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of editors includes followers of various religions, as well as many atheists. Please bear this in mind when editing." ?--User:OwainTalk 18 August 2010 (UTC)
In what way do you feel the statement violates CS?--Bob

Spring is sprung! 19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the above quoted section of the CS seems to imply that, while part of the purpose of the Wiki is to criticise certain things, this does not extend to religion per se and articles are to be mindful of the fact that both atheists and less batshit crazy religious people are involved with the Wiki. In its current context, the quote doesn't seem mindful of that.--User:OwainTalk 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It has never been interpreted that way, and religious/spiritual ideas such as spiritualism, Scientology and Christianity have always been subject to the same level of criticism as, say, homoeopathy. It was certainly never intended to shield religious ideas from criticism or satire.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
SO what does it mean, if anything?--User:OwainTalk 21:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It means that we have no official policy on the existence of God although a very large percentage of our editors are atheists. It does not mean that we don't subject religions to the same level of analysis, criticism and satire as any other evidence-free belief system.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NOT rational[edit]

This article is nothing more than an anti-Christian rant. It is NOT rational and not even close to being accurate. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 11:43, 26 April 2010

What do you expect from a bunch of brainwashed morons who spend their entire day on the internet in their mothers' basements? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 04:07, 15 July 2010

The preceding unsigned comments were left by random BONs too clueless to use the "sign" button. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The preceding signed comment was left by someone too lazy to use the "unsigned" template  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I spent most of yesterday (it seems) unsigning crap like the above and just got sick of it. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't read the article myself - don't like analysing fiction. But stories about iron age middle eastern tribes, their myths and their legacies generally, hold little attraction for me. Of course their legacy impinges on me, I wish it didn't, but this is no reason to take it seriously. It's only a story, after all. 04:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Toast, have you considered that we make make a Toast-script generator? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, want some samples? Myth; Bronze age; Iron age; middle eastern tribe; load o' bollocks; want any more? 07:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I know, just not bothered enough to mock you ;) Maybe you make it in your copious free time?? HAHA sorry. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About this article[edit]

Dear people, I write this knowing that it may wake up more ire and there is nothing I can contribute as far as a debate to make the difference. I write this with a desire and a prayer for our Lord Jesus to bless you, and everyone that you loveBert (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for that!--BobSpring is sprung! 12:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! And a merry good luck to you too Bert! xoxo MarkeDC (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut from "Christian apologetics" section[edit]

Although Christians acting in that capacity have historically been responsible for many deaths, a Christian apologist recently justified this saying, "The number of people killed in the name of Christianity pales in comparison to the number of people killed in the name of atheistic ideologies such as communism (Mao, Stalin)." This is an interesting (and false) example of the "not as bad as" argument.

Killings in the Bible: [ref: Video (at 10:00)]

  • directly by God: more than 399,933 people, not counting those instances where a number is not provided (like "the Flood", a city, an army, ...)
  • indirectly (by God's command): more than 2,017,956 people, not counting 65 entire cities.
  • by Satan: 10[ref: And even those were contract killings for the Big Guy.]

Three years ago ain't that recent anymore, & HoG probably ain't a great a example of a Christian apologist. Nevertheless, if you want to refute his argument, at least get some proper estimates of people killed "in the name of Christianity" over the last couple of millennia (e.g, in crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, pogroms), & some estimates of those killed under the atheist dictatorships he mentioned. Counting people (who probably never existed) who were ostensibly killed by God in the Old Testament as people killed "in the name of Christianity" is a lazy red herring. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the Christian Apologetics section's examples of logical responses ("by arguing that Jesus never even walked the Earth, or that a supernatural entity that cannot be observed also cannot affect our universe") is a bit sloppily written. The first (Jesus never walked the earth) is a statement that needs further backup or explanation to be effective and in its current form seems sloppy. The second (supernatural entity that cannot be observed also cannot affect our universe) seems logical, which is good, but leaves too much room for questions (Who should observe what? What effect on our universe?), thus it seems poorly formulated. But more importantly, a more general problem to these examples is that they lack a presented context, leaving the reader to wonder about what they could be responses to (it's difficult to make a good guess if you don't have the contextually relevant experience). Sorry if I'm being a pedant, as a confused reader it bugged me and I had to point it out. It was an interesting read on the whole. Nullahnung (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

God and people[edit]

God created humans in his image. In the Garden of Eden they disobeyed his request not to eat from the tree of knowledge and were expelled; he then sent the flood, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah etc etc - and he then created his son who sacrificed himself for humanity (or was involved in a dispute with various other groups in Judea)... and humanity still kept on sinning (and gays persist, despite being denounced in the Bible).

So - why did God create such flawed creatures, rather than logical, polite, non-sinning models? And why do the people in the street with tannoys just annoy people and not do something - deeds not words (at least the Hare Krishnas go up and down Oxford Street). (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And why did the Flying Spaghetti Monster create the universe?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Christians and sects thereof are helpful/attempt to be a benefit to society/create art, music etc and are otherwise useful in the name of their faith- others just talk about their beliefs and 'categories of persons they disapprove of' (without explaining why God allowed such persons to arise) - which includes activities not mentioned in the Bible (S/M, dominatrices etc).

In a deterministic universe, what is the point of God?

Those who divide the world into the saved and the damned tend to place themselves among the saved (for some peculiar reason). — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Forbidden fruit[edit]

The fruit in the bible was a pomegranate, not an apple.--Thedoctor80 (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In a real sense it was neither of them as it pretty obviously didn't happen.
As to what the "original" myth about "original sin" referred to it seems to be unclear. Wikipeia's article mentions a number of possibilities as do other sites on the web. I'd be inclined to leave the more modern version of the myth on the basis that earlier myths are neither well known or substantiated.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wording of the Apostle's Creed[edit]

Both "the quick and the dead" and "the living and the dead" are valid translations of the Latin original, the first more traditional, the second more modern. As nice as the traditional translations sound, I would suggest this article should use the modern translation, since it will be more obvious to modern readers what they mean, whereas the traditional translations will leave many people guessing. Also, the Latin original was not written in some archaic Latin (for the time of its authorship), but in the contemporary Latin of the day. That suggests that a modern English translation is more faithful to the original than deliberately sticking to an archaic one. (((Zack Martin))) 07:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I should say that when I reverted "quick" I assumed the person was just taking the piss. I was surprised to see that "quick" is actually a valid translation, albeit an old one. As a good catholic lad growing up I learnt this creed off by heart and we always said living. I think "living" makes more sense but I don't care one way or the other. --DamoHi 10:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Catholic translation I learnt growing up dates to the 1970s, so is rather modern. Even before then, since for Catholics the Latin was the official text, not the English, Catholics have never felt an issue with revising English translations to keep up with changes in the English langauge. Since for Anglicans the English version was the official one, they have been much slower at updating the language, so the archaic language of the Book of Common Prayer survived much longer. (Although, in the Anglican church today, modernised translations are mostly used too.) (((Zack Martin))) 10:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't all really good Catholics use Latin just like the apostles? Please consider the possibility that that there may be some levels of attempted humour in the preceding post.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments like that are much better without the metaphorical wink methinks. DamoHi 11:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In my experience they then to generate posts explaining that the apostles didn't speak Latin or whatever. These are then followed by posts explaining that the original poster knew that but ... It's the problem of conversing in text.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Ya... although, ignoring the joke and taking what you say absolutely seriously Smiley.gif... the Apostles would have primarily spoken Aramaic, Greek, and maybe some Latin... but this creed, despite its name, seems to have originated in the Western Latin-speaking part of the church, since the Greek-speaking church never really used it (not that they disagree with the content)... I think "Apostle's" should be interpreted more as meant as a summary of the teaching we've received from them than as precise words they handed down to us. (((Zack Martin))) 09:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that all the apostles spoke aramaic, with the proviso that Paul also spoke Greek. DamoHi 10:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Damo, I don't know we can say for sure what they did speak. Obviously they all spoke Aramaic, and at least a bit of Hebrew (for liturgical use); Paul definitely spoke Greek well. But it's entirely possible that more of them spoke Greek too; it's entirely possible some of them knew some Latin too. Multiple possibilities are plausible here, and we have insufficient evidence to distinguish them. (((Zack Martin))) 11:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that that is technically true, however there is circumstantial evidence that we can use. For instance know that the language spoke in that area at that time was Aramaic. We also have reasonably convincing evidence that the followers of Jesus were most likely poor working class people who would have had a very limited education. Therefore it can be said with reasonable confidence that his 12 closest followers probably spoke Aramaic and only Aramaic. If by "apostle" you mean people other than the 12 and Paul, then I suppose there is more room for argument. DamoHi 11:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
@Bob I know what you mean, I once typed a satirical JAQ comment on a you tube video on Glenn Beck (about whether Obama had ever denied he was the anti-Christ) that got voted up highly. I now get regular comments from irate people who get quite angry about the whole thing. Shows Poe's law in action I guess.DamoHi 10:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul inserts and edits.[edit]

I'm curious what's up with the additions of the Paulene stuff? Granted, my degrees(s) are nearly 20 years old now, but i'm not aware of anything that suggests Paul did not know about the various churches of the Christ and/or Jesus. Would anyone mind showing some links to what your sources are? EnAttendantGodot2 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul did not meet Jesus in his lifetime and persecuted Christians harshly before his road-to-Damascus conversion, which leads certain people to smart off about how he was a "latecomer" or "carpetbagger." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I know I should not link to this wiki but their citations are all books :-/. Thanks again EnAttendantGodot2 (longest name ever) for the suggestion earlier, that place rocks. MarkeDC (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"their links are all books", yes, but are they GOOD books. Ken Ham has written some books, and i don't think that's a good standard of review. ;-) Seriously, though -- Even though it can get overly "weasly" , alternative ideas are fine if you are clear that they are "one new theory" or "some scholars are suggesting", etc. The bible, and biblical scholarship has a long tradition and it's important to challenge it, but to me personally, you have to use a measure of caution, like a scientists stating that there is no Dark matter, but rather wrong equations. just my 10c. Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child. --V.Nabokov» 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, citing books should be a last resort if no online citation is available. It's much more convenient to have the source available at the click of a mouse if you want to have a quick check of something stated in an article, even just a quick glance at it. I don't think the average reader is going to make a trip to their local library or pay for ordering a book through Amazon or whatever just to check up on something stated in a wiki article; only if they're interested in some serious background reading. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity to a Fundamentalist[edit]

The Christianity to a Fundamentalist section makes the following analogy look accurate: "Conservapedia is to atheism as Rationalwiki is to Christianity" - the rest of the article doesn't, just this section. The section makes a good point, however it would be better suited to Rationalwiki if it was not written as a rant, and began with something along the lines of "Some Christians, most noticeably those like the ultra-conservative Christians on Conservapedia, follow the fundamenalist view that those who disgree with their view are wrong and bound for Hell." - JamesAU (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What's a Conservapedia? ТyYes? 03:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
See Conservapedia. Conservapedia has a habit of classifying all atheists, liberals and scientists as fascist, evil, immoral and condemned-to-Hell. In a similar way, this section implies that all Christians are Fundamentalists. Although I realise that Rationalwiki is intended to be biased, it doesn't need to sound hateful. - JamesAU (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think RW is intended to be biased per se (it's partially about avoiding) bias, but it has an agenda, and fundamentalists are on the other side of the barricades. I, for one, have no objections to making the distinction between fundamentalists and liberal Christians. I won't even be surprised if there's a relatively large portion of the latter among editors. - LucidFox (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Some editors here, however, have expressed the viewpoint that moderate or liberal religious folk are bad, as somehow "enabling" fundamentalism. (((Zack Martin))) 10:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't share that opinion and will argue against it if the need comes. Also, [citation needed]. - LucidFox (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation? Well, see for example this debate, Debate:"Anti-theism" or "Why is Atheism not enough?", in particular Ty's position that "...I veiw [sic] moderates as enablers for fundamentalists." Or similarly Tetronian's case that "religion poisons people both epistemology and morality", which it is clear from the context he believes to be true even of moderate/liberal religions, not just fundamentalist/extremist ones. I think if you go poking around you'll find similar discussions on other occasions. (((Zack Martin))) 11:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's insightful. I'm an atheist myself, but the zeal displayed there is discomforting. - LucidFox (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
My view there is due to the fact that I once overheard the senior pastor of my old church chastising a junior pastor for bad mouthing a local fundamentalist church and poking holes in their theology. He said that by doing so he made the entirety of Christianity look bad. My view has mostly mellowed since then, I usually don't care. Rewrite the section if you wish, it's too reliant on "jokes" Тycommunications wire 12:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
THUS SAITH THE LORD.--Dumpling (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The position taken by the likes of Dawkins is that "reasonable" Christianity is based on the same irrational beliefs as "unreasonable" Christianity. They are just as "bad" as each other because they both rest on irrational beliefs. However vehemently you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden is neither here nor there - it's the belief that is questionable. In that sense moderate Christians can be lumped with fundies. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As a quote
Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!
From [1] Jack Hughes (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins' thought is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. I mean, how confident is Dawkins' in his own righteousness? Very much. (((Zack Martin))) 19:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

NOT rational, very arrogant and condescending as-well[edit]

"This article is nothing more than an anti-Christian rant. It is NOT rational and not even close to being accurate." I agree, and very arrogant and condescending as-well....The claim to rational thinking that this site makes only serves to make a more favorable impression upon the various opinions that would otherwise be perceived as irrational.

Definition: critique 1. An essay or article that gives a critical evaluation (as of a book or play) 2. A serious examination and judgment of something

Definition: ridicule 1. Language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate 2. The act of deriding or treating with contempt

Going by these definitions this page on Christianity is ridicule, and ridicule is not a part of the rational thinking process.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Everybody drink! --ʤɱ heretic 13:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not again... Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Man, that entire comment is going to get me sooooo wasted. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 16:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
PintOfStout's right, we need a template. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of errors here, and statements that are not really backed up. But I don't really see the "arrogant" or "condescending', EXCEPT when talking about fundimentalists. In general, i think most of our articles are that way. But if the BON would like to list specific issues, I'd be happy to address them. God alone knows, we should not want to be arrogant in His face. Pink mowse.pngGodotEn live 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do BON's just want to whine, and never help? Let us no specifics you do not like in the article. Hello? Anyone there? sighs... Out law the BONS.  ;-) just kidding, of course. Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Because anyone interested in the site for more than a minute will sign up. Hence a disproportionate number of BoNs will be like that. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I just think it's funny when its the "anti"RW guys. the "anti feminists" or the "pro-christian". "you are not really being rational, and here's why". Stick around, help us be rational. oh wait, deep down, you probably know you're the irrational one.  ;-) --Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. Given the current battle over sexism in the skeptical community, I'm pretty sure that some of the anti-feminists are thoroughly deluded into thinking they're right. EVDebs (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote sections[edit]

seems sorta tossed in, a tacky afterthought. Other than integrating the quotes into the article, anything we can do to it? Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of "quote sections" are, usually. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The Gandhi one is worth keeping, & just possibly the Simpsons one. One of them could maybe go at the head of the article. The rest can be got rid of. The Lennon one is already covered in the article about him, the Barry Goldwater one is about Jerry Falwell more than it's really about Christianity, & the others are from people I've never heard of & not particularly profound. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, i'm a lover of quotes. I just think they should be really good, from famous (or important) people, and built into an article. I think they can show things better than we can say things. That said, lists of quotes bug me. and quotes "just cause" don't add anything. So, I moved Ghandi's quote to Jesus as I personally think it's more interesting on jesus' page, than xianity, and I moved simpson's up. I kept one other about hell & heaven, though I'm sure there's something better out there in the world. I dumped the rest. Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I like quotebox2 and rquote for those things. Scarlet A.pngsshole 17:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I like c quotes, they look cute. I think of them as "cute quotes". but by all means, please change them if it's more in line with what RW does.  :-) I'd use similies if i could. heh. --Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

pleasantly surprised[edit]

I had no idea this site existed; Google brought me here via a search on the Kruger Effect and other confirmation biases. So I started perusing and got a real kick out of the CP posts (those are real gems, thank you). But then I got to the Christianity article and as a believer I thought to myself 'here we go'. I read it looking for the parts where the authors start the rants and ridicule. But after my first cursory read, I didn't see it. So I did another only slightly less cursory read and still no overt jeering. In fact, I couldn't really get a sense of the author's viewpoint on the legitimacy of Christianity (possibly with the exception of the American fundamentalist section). Maybe I'm dumb and don't read between the lines well or maybe I simply don't read my assumptions into a text. In any case, that I couldn't instantly get a sense of the author's position on the topic at hand is a good thing. For a wiki like this with its intended audience, it's actually a remarkable thing worthy of recognition.

Specific things I appreciated: - Highlighting the differences between various Christians. It's true, we believe all kinds of different crap. - Noting that the majority of Christians are not fundamental extremists. - Going so far as to describe the theology promulgated by many modern American Protestants - that it's about relationship not religion. (I think the language and tone used made it even sound appealing to the non-believer.)

There are definitely things I didn't like as much and disagree with. But right now I'd rather praise specifically.

A suggestion: in the spirit of describing the divergent viewpoints of Christians, in the section describing literal interpretation, would it be helpful to note that many Christians understand the Bible to be a collection of 'books' of different forms, and not a monolithic narrative? Given that there are books of poetry, history, letters (conforming to a well understood Greek form), gospels, and prophecies most Christians know it would be down right silly to read the Bible literally. In fact, Jesus says himself that he speaks in parable for illustrative purposes. Moreover, most Christians understand that the books of prophecy are rich in imagery and Ancient Near East metaphor so it's just freaking hard to understand and impossible to interpret literally (unless you love reading theses in ANE Anthropology, speak fluent ancient Hebrew, and are familiar with the body of scholarly work concerning Babylon/Sumeria/Assyria/Rome/Eqypt).

Thanks for what you all do and doing it the way you do it. — Unsigned, by: Chinaman / talk / contribs

Thanks too.

Deeds and Faith Section[edit]

The Deeds and Faith section seems to reflect almost entirely a westernized concept of the salvation process. I am not an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, merely an interested observer, but the debate over Deeds vs. Faith is almost entirely absent in their various publications - replaced instead by a process called Theosis. It is a combination of faith and works that by themselves don't really do much, but that through time will draw the Christian closer to the mind of God. It is quite literally a request for possession of one's body by "the Holy Spirit". Deeds and Faith only condition the mind with the goal of creating an atmosphere that transforms an individual's attitude. Orthodox place a strong emphasis on repentance - not for specific acts - but for our failure in meeting our God given potential (sin in Greek is "missing the mark", "sozo" in Greek which is frequently translated as salvation, also means healing). Salvation is a healing process by which our human imperfections are diminished as we take into ourselves the power of "the Holy Spirit" as it possesses us. Some acquaintances of mine who experimented with Pentecostalism have stated that there are significant commonalities between the two. I bring this up only to point out that the differences which you mention regarding Christianity on this Wiki article may be even greater than most contributors might think. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Why is this hateful statement here?[edit]

"Of course, it is not uncommon for Jesus to do such nice things as "help me find my keys," "win our football game," and "Bless our bread," so much so that he doesn't have much time to cure AIDS, or help babies who are dying of disease or starvation."

This statement is really offensive to me (not to mention false). As a Christian I can say that no Christian I know thinks God "doesn't have much time". That just seems like someone who is mad that there are problems in the world. (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Mike

"That just seems like someone who is mad that there are problems in the world", mhm, and its been one of the most common criticisms of the Abraham god in history, got its own name and everything.--MikallakiM 20:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So the bulk of our anonymous friend's offense is taken at the "doesn't have much time" part? It seems as if priorities are being misdirected here.
If one were to grant that every sparrow's distress is noticed, how am I to understand that a world-wide standard bearer of Christianity discourages the use of AIDS preventive measures in Africa? How can one explain that same institution long enabling the continued abuse of children in its pastoral care? Some serious smiting seems to have gone missing there. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Oatmeal: How to Suck at your Religion[edit]

Go to How to Suck at your Religion to see how Christians can be hypocritical and arrogant (among other things).

Do you make fun of other peoples religious beliefs but get angry when someone even QUESTIONS your own? And here is another one: "Did you get extremely angry when you read this list meanwhile you could not think of an answer or an explaination for anything they said?" CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


It's really pathetic how people turn atheist just because something bad has happened to them or how crazy some other people in the religion are. Like a certain group of people represent the entire religion like do you not think of the others that act better? Like whatever God that exists HAS to let bad things not happen? You ever think he has his reasons for it? In Christian terms, it's all because of the fall of man when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and people continuing to do sinful things and turn away from God. They think they can do without him so he doesn't give them his blessing. He doesn't feel the need to get involved in every little thing that happens and avoid every bad thing that comes up and he's eligible to do that. It's his world and he can do whatever he wants and if he feels the need to let it all run loose he can do that. A lot of these bad things actually wake people up and with some people, they're just unlucky. It happens, that's life, deal with it. When you have your own world you can run it however you want to but it doesn't mean some other God has to feel the same way or follow the same thing. Actually leave the religion if you don't find it to be the right one and it having nothing to do with the silly cheap excuses such as "Well bad things happened to me" or "There are some crazy people in it" like that does not hold water at all.-- (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"...people turn atheist just because something bad has happened to them or how crazy some other people in the religion are." I think you'll find that most members of this community who identify as atheists have reasons that are more complex, and more rooted in their experience with working rationally with the best evidence available, for their atheism than what you describe. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Header Quotes - None, Neutral, Pro, or Anti?[edit]

Just saw that there was an edit and then un-edit of the page quotes. Not rolling back either edit, since I want to see if anyone else has any input.

Should we change the quotes to something more neutral? Or something more positive, leave them as is, or just delete them? Reading the article, the quotes give me the first impression of disdain over neutrality, followed by the decidedly neutral first few sections, before venturing into the criticism after the first full section. Just my thoughts and impressions, but then again, I'm Christian myself, albeit a dirty librul one.

EDIT: I know the point of the wiki isn't neutrality, and it is a skeptical approach, but I still feel as though we should save the criticism for the fundies, hypocrites, and other idiots who are deserving of it.Rytex (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Rytex

If you truly are not Christians...[edit]

Than tell God before you go to sleep that if he truly exists, then to give you a heart attack at night in your sleep tonight to kill you, then throw you in hell. If you can't do that, that's proof you're just an atheist in name only. You'd only be scared to do that if you believed in God but didnt want to admit it. Because you know he could easily do that to prove he exists.--TrustChristorGotoHell (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just tried, had a nap, still alive. Got any other suggestions?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all - love the username. Secondly - that's a very nice false dilemma, with the maturity of a chain e-mail no less. You don't get to dictate the criteria for anything - never mind if people "really are" atheist or not. Besides, your whole test here is about as logical as if I were to tell you to throw yourself off of a building and pray to the Lord to have him catch you in the fall or something like that (though I suppose the difference is that you would be in any real danger at all in that comparison, unlike me). Christians generally try to avoid getting themselves into your current situation, where any kind of empirical test of God's existence is to be performed in any capacity (e.g. "the true God will set fire to these logs with lightning!"). That's because, y'know, God never fails to fail to deliver. I assume you are also insinuating that if one prays to be given a heart attack and to be thrown in hell but is in fact not, that would instead make one a warranted and well-motivated atheist since that proves something about the absence of your Lord? Anyway, nice christian morals you've got - thank you. What's with this obsession with hell and punishment of yours? How is your relationship with your father? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
What real Christian actually believes, that if a person prayed "Please God kill me right now and send me to hell forever", that God would actually answer that prayer? Even judged by Christians' own standards this is a stupid test. Blacke (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Dood, I'm Christian and I've made that prayer. Heck, I'd wager good old Catholic guilt leads quite a few devout Christians to do the same. Your false dilemma isn't even rational in a pro-Christian context.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I should probably note here that having a username and general message that tells me to burn in eternal punishment or submit to a tyrannical sky fairy isn't exactly the most appealing.
Secondly, you should probably keep in mind that prayers aren't a valid method of gauging the existence of something that is assumed to be correct from the very get-go. In essence, if I did die from a heart attack, it's because it's assumed Gods purpose. If I don't die, it's assumed to be part of God's purpose. In either case, I've not actually proved anything.
Thirdly, I've tried this once as well. Guess what happened. Derp cat (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)