gentileCheerios did give reasons for picking christianity specifically, that was pretty much the entirety of the post. presented with that evidence, I can see no reason to pick a religion other than christianity. It'd be pretty weird to say "All progressive cultures were founded on Christianity, so I'll be a Jew!"
I wish I had gotten back earlier to respond to this, but EDC actually says it better than I could have anyway. I suppose I read his post and couldn't take that as reasoning for belief because it felt more like a general concession based on a vague idea of history.
It almost sounds like like gentileCheerios isn't really a 'christian' but a theist that happens to support protestants a lot because of his perception of their positive influence on society. Its just sort of an odd thing to combine with the reason that he suddenly stopped being an atheist in the first place. That is, a 'logic' based move rather than a 'historical' based one.
I stopped being an atheist for a logical reasons, and arbitrarily picked Christianity because I wanted to be part of that group, instead of any other.
The realization that, liking it or not, theism was the only correct metaphysical explanation for reality is what made me grow out of atheism.
Christianity was pretty much an arbitrary choice for me, based on historical facts alone. If I had to pick one, it had to be the one that took the man to the moon, that had produced free, tolerant and productive societies, not the one that creates a society where there is widespread belief in magic potions that can only be made to work by rape.
Reducing religion to nothing but a set of beliefs and rituals is a common mistake. For example, I don't know for a fact that Jesus will come again. Maybe he won't, maybe he will. I don't know if the Genesis is the literal history of the creation of the Universe. It is impossible to prove that.
Throughout my studies I have noted that societies can organize out of either religion or anti-religion, there is no other choice. There is no void that lasts too long. If its role is not fulfilled by an "anti-religion" (communist countries), a "secular religion" (vulgar materialism and utilitarian morals) or something like that, then it is eventually fulfilled by a proper religion, which is how religion appeared in first place, and which is how Islam is becoming popular in Western Europe.
The only only correct metaphysical explanation? I am really curious as to how to came to that conclusion. IDK if you intended this, but in the way you worded that it comes off as fairly stubborn and set. Which, coming from yourself seems odd since you moved from christian to atheist to christian again.
You mean it was arbitrary in the aspect of actual belief is what I'm assuming you intended by saying this, which than by most peoples definition of Christianity, you aren't really a christian. You may root for it and even participate in its traditions but if you don't actually worship and believe in its god (for instance that Jesus will return) its really odd to claim that you are one.
I don't reduce religion to beliefs and rituals. Its just that, you can philosophically agree with many teachings within any religion, that doesn't make you one of them necessarily.
Communist countries? What I think you mean is countries with a large concentration of power in one place tend to be awful places to live, and religion is one of the things a tyrannical power will use through either snuffing it out or creating and maintaining one that reinforces the ones in power. Communism and capitalism has little to do with this issue.
Well, yeah. If the Universe is there, it is because something made it possible, i.e: God. If there is no God, then the Universe makes itself possible; it
is a materialistic version of God. I'm accepting the premise that something that transcends reality created reality, and I'm choosing to be part of the christian "group", even though I wouldn't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. This isn't a black or white issue. You can agree with only 1% of christianity and still be part of the "group", and you could agree with 99% of it and not be a part of it.
Communist countries as in countries that were ruled by the communist movement, which IS a materialistic and anti-religious movement by principle. Like with religion, you cannot reduce communism to a set of principles and beliefs. It too, has a history, it's a culture by itself which is not stagnant, but evolves through a dialectics of its own.
Well, it is true that countries with a catholic tradition tend to be shitholes in general, see Mexico and most of Latin America, but it's a different story with countries with protestant tradition, which are usually the more progressive and gay loving countries in the world, such as Sweden, where even gender itself is seen as nothing more than a social construct.
Are you just sort of arbitrarily making things up in this thread? I mean, first you claim the US is progressive re: gay rights and now you're claiming Sweden is some sort of post-sexism utopia. None of this is true.
I think you're mistaking rights that gay people are entitled for the "gay rights" movement, which is a "social movement" or something like that, which is essentially a part of a larger movement that seeks to establish cultural hegemony. Read Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. In Iran gay people are entitled to be hanged. In US gay people are entitled to stay alive, own property, firearms and consume like the rest of society, they have very basic human rights. In Sweden they're entitled to adopt children, but that is likely to change as the majority of that country's population eventually turns to Islam.
