'The New Atheism' by Richard Dawkins, AAI 2007
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- *** This is NOT the new talk from AAI 2009, this is from 2007. I just wanted to get it up on our youtube channel. - Josh
Richard Dawkins talks about "The New Atheism" at the AAI 2007 Conference in Washington, D.C.
Buy the DVD with all the AAI 2007 videos here: store.richardda...
richarddawkins.net
richarddawkinsf...
atheistalliance...
Produced by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell
Filmed by
Josh Timonen
Wayne Marsala
My best to the videographer who recorded this and kept up as Richard spoke and then referred to slides. Smooth and professional. Thank you.
I really liked Richard's answer about the human need for ritual: A ritual can be good, it's nothing to get upset about, it can be rather moving and beautiful to celebrate our culture in symbolic terms.
As long as we remember that rituals are just that, symbolic for something else
i am soooo atheist that if you disintegrate me to my cells, each and everyone of them will be atheist individually. I know my comment is out of context but i cant say it outloud in my country cause there will be consequences and they will be dire.
So I just wanna go on record; im an atheist...whoaaa, feels good (to be able to and to use the opportunity be honest even it s in cyber world)
Out of curiosity. What country is it exactly? An islamic one maybe?
Also what is your name and address damn infidel?!!
Hmm sorry, I got carried.
"Atheists have no basis for morality."
We know from observation that all human beings have something common to their experience: their wish to be happy and to be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. We also know from observation that all human beings are made up of the same elemental material, and that all of this elemental material has identical origins: ancient stars. This establishes our basic equality and basic commonality in an objective sense.
With an objective basis for acknowledging our basic equality, and with an objective basis for acknowledging our basic commonality, we have an objective basis for moral behaviour. Behaviour which deprives other human beings of their happiness is immoral, and behaviour which does not, is not.
The problem with deriving a moral code from an invisible ghost in the sky for which there is exactly zero evidence has to do with its inherent lack of objectivity. Since there is no evidence for the existence of an invisible ruler in the sky, we know that its moral edicts originate not from a really-existing ghost but from the imaginations of people who believe in ghosts. Morality which has its origins within the private perceptions of those who believe in magical ghosts is inherently unreliable, and this explains why so many of the most heinous moral crimes in human history were carried out by religious people and institutions.
Nothing further needs to be said on this issue.
Ryan MacFarlane- A couple of points to consider-
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Point 1
"With an objective basis for acknowledging our basic equality, and with an
objective basis for acknowledging our basic commonality, we have an objective
basis for moral behaviour. Behaviour which deprives other human beings of their
happiness is immoral, and behaviour which does not, is not."
Using your "objective basis" to evaluate behaviors "...which
deprives other human beings of their happiness is immoral" would logically
have you defending human life of the unborn since we all share this basic commonality from conception to grave. You are ProLife, right?
And- Point 2
"...and this explains why so many of the most heinous moral crimes in
human history were carried out by religious people and institutions."
Your statement here ignores the facts of history. The greatest moral crimes in human history
were committed by Atheists. Pol
Pot (~ 1.7 million murders), Adolf Hitler (~ 16 million murders), Joseph Stalin
(~23 million murders), Mao Zedong (~ 50 million murders), etc...were all
atheists that had millions of murders committed in the name of their "belief systems". Murder
is a heinous moral crime, right? Were
these atheists wrong for committing millions of murders? Where in your
paradigm do you account for their actions?
The God of the Bible has given us an objective standard by which we live and
laws by which all peoples are judged. Regardless
of Race… black, brown, red, yellow or white… Regardless of Religion… Jew,
Gentile, Atheist, Pagan or Christian….We are all under the same judge and laws.
The laws provide objective standards by
which we establish and value human life. We
protect all human life- old, young, even
the unborn… because we know life is sacred.
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Yes that fine bcoz religious morals are sanatic conclusions.
Thats why we dont respects your baseless moral.
***** _Using your "objective basis" to evaluate behaviors would logically
have you defending human life of the unborn since we all share this basic commonality from conception to grave_
No. Deriving our morality from an acknowledgement of our most fundamentally in-common nature and wishes does not lead into a pro-life conclusion. There are two criterion by which our treatment of others has an objective moral basis: 1) That we have common origins and composition, and 2) That we have common experience, i.e., the wish to be happy and not to suffer. Early in its development, an unborn fetus does not possess a nervous system capable of supporting the experience of self-awareness, and as such it is not capable of undergoing experiences like happiness and suffering. Because this is true, unborn fetuses early in their development cannot be evaluated in the same moral terms as other human beings.
Those few atheist leaders responsible for great crimes against humanity did not commit their atrocities for atheistic reasons, nor was their lack of religious belief causal to their crimes. If anything, those individuals opposed established religions because their existence interfered with the cult of personality they sought to establish around themselves.
Morality is all we atheists have.
I vividly recall stopping EVERYTHING we were doing in school during the second semester, this is in 6 - 9 grade junior high/middleschool, Normally having a 7 period day of math english etc., where we would spend two weeks learning what was on the standardized tests.
We would be closed up into rooms with instructors for two whole weeks, our homeroom teacher, and would go over the material for a test that lasted three days.
Richard Dawkins is so awesome. I love the way that he always seems happy. He's really passionate about anything about which he speaks.
He is sooo urbane and polished!
This is awesome, I wish hispanic speaking people can have access to these lectures.
Thanx for uploading! This is one of the better of the good ones! Love it!
Belief is not proof, it is the acceptance of an idea without evidence.
Religion kills curiosity--our difference from animals
People kill curiosity, religion is made by man. Christ is truth. Not man made.
He loves to talk about him. Because he rocks.
@ananiasacts "Religion works by insinuating itself into a child's psyche before they've developed the cognitive ability to even realize that this is taking place, [etc]."
VERY nicely put. I'm going to make a note of that.
sonnygll
Personally, modern science played a key role in convincing me there is no god.
Dawkins comes from a scientific background as opposed to a primarily philosophical view, and science provides tangible evidence for how and why we came to be. It's thanks to him that I'm no longer sitting on the agnostic deist fence.
Each of the well-known Atheists has their role to play; each appeals to a different mindset. I'm grateful to all of them for their work and their courage to speak out.
Agreed. And how come the Ten Commandments don't include things such as "Thou shalt not rape" but DOES include things such as "Thou shalt not worship graven images"?? Priorities!
« calling them idiots doesn't help »
Wouldn't say that. Venting frustration is a very healthy psychological mechanism. Keeps one from becoming unbalanced.
It's from 2007, back then there was still hope...
Got to work eventually, though even after closing windows and relaoding / refreshing it still kept insisting on starting 5 minutes in, then stopping again at 6.20. Seems to be ok now. Must have been God trying to stop us seeing it :D
I've been having some heated debates with theists here and there, and I've come to the sad conclusion that no matter how much rationality you throw at them, they will NOT budge... ESPECIALLY creationists and apologists!
I give you a LOT of credit Richard, simply for not giving up in the face of SO much ignorance and stubbornness! Even in my few dozen debates, I've grown frustrated with all the sheer ignorance, to the point where I've just given up trying to explain things to these people...
They are both reliable but in different ways.
Yes perfection can be attained on this earth. It would require everyone to tear down the walls of division such as religion, political ideologies and nations. Very hard to imagine because humanity has the afflictions of greed, aversion and delusion. So all we can hope is that individuals take the time to really observe and studying their own minds. Then as awareness and higher consciousness arises we can take a moment to truly try to change ourselves not someone else.
Hmmm. This wont play past 6:20. Anyone else getting this problem?
@Horathgar42 There is a book called "Bones of contention" which goes into detail about lucy. Also think about it; a set of bones found in Africa which are held up to be the bases for Prehistoric man, when the origin of language, etc is all found in Mesopotamia.
My statement is still not overturned.
1 Corinthians1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
I would say it is wise to assume you are real and what you can see is real - and therefore it makes sense to take care when crossing the road.
We actually do live in a fantasy, the world we percieve with our eyes is a fabulous model that our brains construct for us to navigate around our world.
Was that Hemant asking the second question?
The fact that science consistently yields succesful results and constantly proves itself right is proof enough for me.
Of course you cannot actually do an experiment to prove that science is effective because the doing of that particular experiment entails using science in some shape or form
Philosophy can be affective, but only when it is backed up by science.
I wasn't referring to my survival either, I was referring to the survival of of the less fortunate people and kids in third world countries who die everyday from lack of good water to drink and food.
@nin8halos- Correction it was George Wald who said " spontanous generation of a lving organisml is impossible. Yet here we are I believe in spontanous generation." The origins of life, Scientific American, vol 190,
Not necessarily questions, mostly statements concerning the video you sent. Scroll up and find out.
I ♥ Dawkins. His ability to laugh at the theists that send him hate mail or create those fake videos is awesome and always good for a laugh.
I'm not a philosopher and if it takes a philosopher to doubt the existence of reality, I'm glad that i'm not one!
The thought experiment you describe is interesting and at this time, I cannot think of a way to disprove it - neither can you, neither can anyone else - even Dawkins.
Maybe you cannot be sure that the real world is real, but it's still worth looking both ways when crossing the road.
You make interesting points. I absolutely agree with your opinion on religious dogma. Scripture and religion are two separate entities however. What if a creationist found verses within scripture that were in accord with science (and maybe even ahead of science by millenia) would that be fact or faith now?
Throneofdecay-
It should be clear from my first comment that I do not choose to "believe" something that is "likely imaginary". In fact I went so far as to say that I tend towards atheism. The argument that a highly organised organism(s) (gods) simply sprang intro existence and then created the universe, seems very much weaker than saying that simple mass/energy did so. However both seem bazaar to me.
Hey shotsxxx,
Do YOU think it is silly to not look both ways when crossing the road?
It still deters people from committing crimes and keeps those who have offended from re offending. It is an effective way of enforcing and maintaining law and order, rewarding evil with evil and good with good.
Punishment makes the society we live in condusive and adherrent to laws and order. Your ttrain of thought was is absolutely altered because it is not normal for someone not to see the aims, objectives and effectiveness of punishment in regards to adherrent of law and order in society
@Horathgar42 In what way has science ruled out a Designer and life source? The laws which exist point to a Designer and life source. There was a model a person made which was at a museum, it used gears and spokes to recreate our planetary system. The model was great because it showed how all the planets interacting with each other including their moons. what caught my attention is the model had a designer but the actual Solar system has none?
Oh to be without Christ how empty life must be. "There is no God beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me and be ye save all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:21a-22 'I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." Isaiah 46:11b "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Mathew 11:28 The Justice of God was satisfied at Golgotha, Trust Christ alone
@TomFynn
I agree with you completely as long as the approach doesn't involve judging him as though he is part of a religious sect that is not his own. Show them that their source material and what they believe doesn't add up, or even add up with reality in general, is completely alright in my book.
My friend who is a believer started a conversation about the Ark. I said that a pair of the same species would result in inbreeding and death. And he proposed in all seriousness that Atlantis offered cloning technology to archive the DNA of many individuals to reconstruct after the flood. Isn't it brilliant?
@Parapon3ra
I do understand the issue that you are addressing, but how do you suggest that this is going to be stopped? Stricter immigration rules are just going to lead to more illegal immigrants. Of course, there is always the option of forcing immigrants to learn the language and take classes about the country's culture, but that would have to be financed somehow because otherwise no one is going to be able or willing to take them.
@Gazdo01 I was stating explicitly "in the examples", thus encompassing *all* the examples I gave you. Not just the Inquisition. Please try to read what's there.
Angels worship God because he is their creator and deserves their worship, just as he is our creator and deserves our worship. There is nothing we can offer God for the wonderful gift of life he gave to us for FREE, so the least we can do is say "thank you Lord" and that is what worship is. Why wont he accept worship? He deserves it!!
of course what I was referring to is to those that cannot speak English or go to a university where this knowledge is so common, which from my view point happen to be the most. This is not only an alternative knowledge or a choice; this is the result of a scientific investigation that ends up being the only way to grab the truth about things.
This is a great infomercial for those who already have a hatred for God. RD is your saviour. Exchanging the Glory of God for the worship of the creature! How sad!
I learned I'm an athorist today!
@ruecks
I'm agnostic as well. I'm an agnostic atheist, which simply means I see no reason to believe in a god (atheism), and I don't claim to know either way (agnosticism).
Sounds like you and I are on the same boat, we just have a disagreement over what the term atheism means, but it's not that important.
Atheism isn't really anything. We have no tenants, no beliefs, no services, and no idols.
We are simply people who haven't fallen for the religious trick.
Well you see that's the problem. Sure this theory states that over 13 billion years ago there existed a very hot and dense state that expanded,cooled due to that movement and produced atoms that produced elements and so on so for but there are many problems with this. 1st Heat and Density are dependent on sub-atomic particles, but yet all sub atomic particles are a RESULT of this expansion. 2nd this movement gradually cooled? Yet this process too is impossible w/o any subatomic particles.
I am an agnostic who tends towards atheism. However
I believe the assertion that "evolutionism leads to atheism" is a little silly. No matter how fervently one believes in it, evolutionary theory dose not disprove the existence of a god (or gods). The Catholic church and Church of England (among others) seem to be able to accept evolution.
Good point!
You know what, I kind of agree with that.
But it does not and never have prohibited people from committing criminal acts. People who would not kill in any circumstance would not kill no matter what, the ones that would kill under some circumstances will kill under those circumstances (for example lack of education, jobs, homes, food, warmth, is some of the circumstances where many will rob, steal, sometimes even kill, regardless of punishment), and the ones that will kill under all circumstances will kill under all circumstances.
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
Funny definition considering I've often used that to describe any religious individual I've had the misfortune of hearing speak
@vipaccess1 They pointed to planes in the sky and said 'it's because God is on their side'. The village I stayed at in Africa had a gaggle of missionaries who came and totally destroyed their traditional artifacts and relics, burning them, burying them, and throwing them in the river. They instilled homophobia into them to such a degree that when my father was staying there they took a reported, accused homosexual man, tied him to a post in front of the church, and burnt him alive.
@markgg1 Actually it is the other part of the story of the Gospel which many miss is it is first the Holy Spirit which is knocking on the heart of people, but people resist the Holy spIrit of God which convicts the world of Sin. Many missionaries who work in remote areas find people who already have a knowledge of God. Who sent the missionary to that area? God said he moves heaven and earth for one who seeks him
Again, I'm not a philosopher akido - I'm just some bloke, please define your technical terms if you feel that I'm misunderstanding them.
Science is not based upon unproveable axioms (unlike some branches of mathematics) - it is based on the actual physical laws that are an actual feature of the universe.
This is why we can often apply our theories to make new things - radio, GM foods, aircraft etc...
If you really think science doesn't deal with reality - don't get on a plane!
@Fantasticlist Well actually, it's not a theory. It is observable. He goes into detail about genes and their development in his book "The Greatest Show On Earth"; and he does so in a much more sophistocated way than I could here.
So, if you want HIS answer, I recommend you take a look at the book. But perhaps that's an overly-optimistic proposition on my part.
very good point
Me too, I get all giddy.
There is also another problem where we sometimes use the term Christian too generally. Even many Christians use it too generally. Its not fair of us to react to, say, a Lutheran based on the actions and beliefs of an Evangelist or Catholic. Its a word of practically no meaning, since there are some 38,000 denominations between East Orthodox, Protestants, and Catholics. We can safely comment on their source material most of the time, but we shouldn't treat them as all the same.
If you say so but it leaves my statement standing.
I can't answer your question about morality until you answer my question about which gods morals should we follow. And which gods morals are THE morality which supposedly makes us caring of one another etc. Before you answer a little reminder: many morals of different religions have changed to suit the times. If you're a christian do you follow the old testament for example? Is THAT moral in these times?
@BrotherhoodOfShadows 3rd point : yes we don't need to to base our discussions in the unknown, simply because of 2 things:
-the fact that we don't something dose not mean god made them. the argument that is "you don't know , I don't know ,so am right" is childish at best.
-we have everything we need to disapprove religion at our hand (we would have had the prove if god gave it to us as you say , cuz the word of god must withstand any examination by humans to be a clear msg in this life/warnning
People make remixes all the time, doesn't mean it was a creationist who edited them.
« you cant not beat his message »
I don't want to "beat Dawkins' message". I am absolutely convinced, reasoning from the available evidence, that evolutionary theory is at least fundamentally correct.
That does not change that Dawkins is net very good at explaining it to the layman, and that his books are confused and contain various mistakes.
Do you really think that the idea of us being in a computer simulation is a plausible one? It ranks up there with flying teapots and the like in my humble opinion.
Looking both ways when crossing the road , however, is a good rule of thumb - it is a good assumption and its validity can even be tested experimentally, after you...
@aGcg2H those things also don't reproduce and mutate, if two buildings could get it on and have a bunch of little buildings, then they would in fact evolve and come about without a creator.
aGcg2H:
The parents can claim that what their child is doing is wrong, as long as the activity is against the law. In the case you mentioned, the majority of the world's societies would certainly deem that as wrong. As far as it being 'immoral', well that's obviously subjective.
My comment explaining why omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible has been removed, so here it is again...
Ominscience is being all knowing, Omnipotence is being all powerful.
You cannot be both since...
If you KNOW how you are going to avert a disaster, you cannot then change your mind - so you are not all powerful.
If you decided to change your mind any way in order to disprove the doubters, then you are not all knowing, because what you knew initially was wrong.
Could not agree more on your ideas about education in Schools. My son is going to an anglican school and I fear is being tought he is one. God forbid! - pun intended
@vipaccess1 He is to the ancient Akoss people. Krishna is to his followers, Horus was to his, the Roman Gods were unprecedented, there is a guru believed to be a living God in India, who performs miracles, and over 1 million people crowded around him for his birthday.
Everything you described is cultural evolution. In order to teach a hunter gatherer to be a good moral Christian, you first must translate the bible, which means teaching them about slavery, genocide, prisons, death penalties, etc
@ruecks Do you really think religion doesn't affect other people? And society as a whole? Do you think that it's influence is entirely positive?
I'm not confused, you claimed that hope was the basis of your belief, now you are saying otherwise.
(continued)
The point I was actually making, was this. The critics who call this "new atheism", and act like it is somehow different, and inferior, are just not well read. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Unless they think 80+ years is still new.
I was also commenting on the absurdity of them calling the very polite Dr. Dawkins, strident. Hitchens is the only recent author that takes a harsh tone at all.
you dont need to hit a child in the face because he took food, you have to scold the child and make him feel bad for what he did, showing him the wrongness in it, that is reasonable punishment, it does not need to be the application of force. Stealing is stealing whether it be food or a car or a book, stealing is stealing. Whether you teach the adult to precure money legally, it does not still take away the fact that he stole. And everyone knows that you have to work to get money
@queenastilon
The really important question is: does their mindless following of religious authorities allow me to call them idiots? After all, even fairly intelligent people can be brainwashed, if you only get at them when they're young (or senile) enough. What is your opinion on this?
@Gazdo01 Let's see: An infallible leader whose every word must be obeyed, a bright future promised in the distant future (promised only for the faithful), a bunch of devout followers, a clear sense of "if you're not with us you are against us", persecution of everybody who was perceived to be the latter, the firm belief that there was a Plan and that it was in a Book...Sounds pretty Christian to me.
If god exists and is as you say a GOOD god, then he cannot possibly be omnipotent as choosing evil would be impossible for him.
But if you count Khorne's demons as extensions of himself, his demons's kills gets added to his total (in the same way that most of YHWH's kills are performed by angels).
In that case, the invasion of Lustria (during the collapse of the polar gates) alone gives him at least a 10:1 lead on YHWH, and since then, Warhammer Fantasy alone has given him several thousand years to gather kills. If you add the kills during Warhammer 40.000...
Yeah, Khorne wins.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Saying god did it doesn't explain why there was a god to do it all in the first place, what made god?
If the universe came about (along with time, energy/matter etc...) via a collossal explosion, then you'd expect that to leave some kind of signature - big event, yes?
Cosmic microwave radiation is pretty good evidence that at a time that we think is close to the beginnings of the universe, there was indeed a big bang type event.
I just realized 2 things today: first isn't it rather strange that of all the people associated with New Atheism there is not 1 social scientist? & second why do we accept it that a(n exact[?]) scientist like Dawkins talks about the subjects of social science we would find it probably (& rightfully so) completely absurd if a social scientist would do the same with the subjects of natural science?
I take your point on theism. Atheist is to acquiesce to evolution. Evolution is to empower cult of god Darwin. This is irrefutably able to be verified as some have, with correct research and definitions in accord with oxford dictionary.
this is going to be a late night...
Becoming wiser? Personally, becoming wiser means accepting the realities of life and working with it instead of trying to deny it and running away from it. No matter what solutions you invent, the world will still continually deteriorate in all forms of afflictions and iniquties, it will not change for the better, it will only become worse as generations pass by, and this is because the world is becoming less truthful and no amount of inventions will cleanse the earth of poverty and corruption
Wow, this is epic in so many levels ^^
@Fantasticlist My arguments and ideas were originally centered around evolution (scroll back up to the begining of our little debate). I never spoke against the possibility of a God. Why do you people always assume that if I reject creationism, I must also be rejecting God's existence altogether? There can be evolution with or without a god. And at this point in our scientific history, when evolution is observable fact, I might dare to say that God and evolution are now two seperate topics.
@Neanderthalcouzin Is your tribal leader the central person of world history? is he in the center of most every debate? has his life had the impact on history? are there Hospitals and schools named after him in response to his love? Missionaries living in remote parts of the world away from home and love ones in order that other lives may be filled with Gods incredible love?
It's entirely relevant. It's further demonstrating the massive difference between faith and sceince.
Forgive me if you didn't, but did you not grow up with two perfectly capable parents?
Thats usually the parent's responsibility to teach basic life lessons, not the government's.
Atheistic moral codes are based on the fact that we have to find a way of doing things ourselves rather than expect to be told by a deity.
Also, Zacdes (because I'm sad enough to read the comments), you can't expect someone to accept the facts until they have seen the evidence. Just telling them that there is evidence, or telling them to look it up, does nothing. You actually have to take them to a museum, or give them a book to read, or teach them basic physics and biology from scratch, in some cases. Just think - if you can't accept their evidence and assertions, how can you expect them to accept yours.
A good act would be to change the world in such a way that the circumstances in which some people kill, rob, steal, hit people in the face etc, does not occur. Anything else is unethical because it has been tried before (we have cut off heads, arms, feet, penises, tongues and lungs (see viking history about cutting your lungs out with you still alive while they flap on your back like wings), yet we still did bad things because the circumstances in which they were needed never stopped occuring).
When an evil person dies his or her heart stops and their life ceases to be. Then they will be cremated, buried or cast upon the stones to be eaten by vultures. I'm that most insane people suffer a lot of mental "hell" and anguish in their lives. Some probably even welcome death.
@epanek I like the analogy
Everything i do is not because of religion, but because of God, who is beyond all religion. On judgement day, God will not ask yu "Which religious denomination where you a part of?" or "Which church did you go to?". We are all his children created in his image and likeness, and all that can save us is if we accept Jesus as Lord and saviour. You can be the most religious man on earth, but without salvation from Christ you are no different from the sinner who was never religious
If it is inevitable then we would die at age 80 no matter what. Yet, that is not what happens. It means we can, with the right genes, the right environment (the food and lifestyle etc), the right medicines, not die today, then not die tomorrow, then not die the day after that, into whenever you cannot survive anymore. Or when you do not want to survive anymore (suicide is a bigger cause of death than war).
Perhaps not, but you could tell a christian you're part of a religion that has it's own view on god (much different then the xian one) and you can trick them into disproving your god then turn their new skepticism against their god.
@TomFynn You said it... sounds like. But these are not specific Christian principles, it so happens that SOME of them, in certain context, may apply to SOME Christians denominations.
Christianity isn't based on the persecution of everybody "else". As for "the Plan", maybe you're talking about eschatalogy, but then again, Christianity is not BASED on that. The "Book" isn't ALL there is neither.
Plus, the person of the pope musn't be blinded followed. He's not infaillible in that sense.
@MisioneriesinChile It is evidence that points to an outcome, not the outcome that points to the evidence. If you must first believe in an outcome and afterwards to look at the evidence, you're just cherry picking, you're not being honest.