• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why I Am Not a Christian"

MrFrankZito

Thinker
M
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
226
Following the path of atheists for whom I have a great deal of respect, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Carrier, I decided to make a brief statement of the principal reasons why I am not a Christian.

Myself a three-time contributor to Internet Infidels' Secular Web (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=authors&id=720), I was hoping members of this discussion forum might be able to provide some feedback on my medium-length (roughly 3000-word) essay.

I posted the piece on my personal blog site but, in hopes of wider publication online or elsewhere, I'd like to make the piece as strong as possible, while keeping the length reasonable.

Here is the link: http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-am-not-christian.html

Thank you for any feedback anyone might provide.
 
It's good, but there's too much quoting of writers that you agree with. It makes you look like someone who was persuaded by others as opposed to an independent thinker with original ideas. I think it would be better if it contained only quotes that you disagree with followed by your criticisms, along with your own original thoughts.
 
Thanks for your comment.

I guess, in liberally quoting, my rationale was twofold: To show that I am well-read on the relevant subject matter, and to share the insights of minds more fertile than my own.

However, you are probably correct that, if quotation is overdone, a reader might get the impression that I, the writer, have not drawn independent conclusions.
 
Here's a list of my reasons "Why I Am Not a Christian"....

1. There is no sane reason to believe that Christian beliefs accurately represent reality.

That's the entire list. What other reason do you need?
 
While one or two of your arguments are not ones that I would use, I think you've expressed them very clearly. I'm not sure I agree with Towlie's comment, in that it looks to me like you've developed ideas in your own words and then quoted others to supposrt them; that doesn't say, "Here's what Christopher Hitchens says, I agree with him," but rather "Here's what I think, and Hitchens' views are similar." Any mention of Richard Dawkins will probably make any fundamentalist Christian stop reading, but you've referenced him far enough down that they've probably stopped reading anyway (that is to say, not in the first sentence).

The comment by 'nick', though, is wonderful in its stupidity. It's a thing of horrible beauty, and should be preserved for posterity and possibly attached permanently to the article as an appendix, perhaps with a comment such as "Can you spot which of us is an intelligent, thinking being, and which is a knee-jerking, ignorant idealogue?"

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
While one or two of your arguments are not ones that I would use, I think you've expressed them very clearly. I'm not sure I agree with Towlie's comment, in that it looks to me like you've developed ideas in your own words and then quoted others to supposrt them; that doesn't say, "Here's what Christopher Hitchens says, I agree with him," but rather "Here's what I think, and Hitchens' views are similar." Any mention of Richard Dawkins will probably make any fundamentalist Christian stop reading, but you've referenced him far enough down that they've probably stopped reading anyway (that is to say, not in the first sentence).

The comment by 'nick', though, is wonderful in its stupidity. It's a thing of horrible beauty, and should be preserved for posterity and possibly attached permanently to the article as an appendix, perhaps with a comment such as "Can you spot which of us is an intelligent, thinking being, and which is a knee-jerking, ignorant idealogue?"

Dave
Click to expand...


Dave,

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, as you note, I was cognizant of the atheists and freethinkers who I chose to quote and what impression they might leave with my readers. Richard Dawkins, indeed, is a much despised figure among the fundamentalist or biblical-literalist Christian crowd. However, I think his comments are important to the larger point I was trying to make in that particular section of the piece, and so I elected to include him. Hopefully, other quoted individuals, such as Coyne and Hume and Shermer, impart a less negative impression.

I am curious: Which are the one or two arguments that you, yourself, would not use?

And, in brief, why do you consider those arguments to be unsound or unconvincing?

Thanks!
 
I think it doesn't fit well to have too many rather long quotes in any essay, particularly so early in that essay. Moreover, right after your first quote, you make no direct reference to it, and make hardly any elaboration on it, except for the question "Where are our miracles and prodigies?" Then followed by rather childish examples of what miracles could prove the existence of a god (such as everyone waking up one morning in Mars etc.) That beginning gave me a low starting score for the piece.

Shortly after that I came across a factual error in your text. You say "The Bible is not a product of divine inspiration but, rather, first century ignorance." The Bible is not just the New Testament; it's Old Testament + New Testament. The Old Testament is much older than first century. Better say "ancient ignorance" (even though the same ignorance exists nowadays), or phrase it somewhat differently.

Then I noticed your recurrent pattern of presenting your reasons opening them with sentences of the form: "I am not a Christian because X," then attempting to elaborate with quotes, plus some comments and analyses of your own on that X, then closing with "Because of X, I am not a Christian." In my humble opinion, that is a rather poor stylistic approach.
 
Last edited:
rsaavedra said:
I think it doesn't fit well to have too many rather long quotes in any essay, particularly so early in that essay. Moreover, right after your first quote, you make no direct reference to it, and make hardly any elaboration on it, except for the question "Where are our miracles and prodigies?" Then followed by rather childish examples of what miracles could prove the existence of a god (such as everyone waking up one morning in Mars etc.) That beginning gave me a low starting score for the piece.

Shortly after that I came across a factual error in your text. You say "The Bible is not a product of divine inspiration but, rather, first century ignorance." The Bible is not just the New Testament; it's Old Testament + New Testament. The Old Testament is much older than first century. Better say "ancient ignorance" (even though the same ignorance exists nowadays), or phrase it somewhat differently.

Then I noticed your recurrent pattern of presenting your reasons opening them with sentences of the form: "I am not a Christian because X," then attempting to elaborate with quotes, plus some comments and analyses of your own on that X, then closing with "Because of X, I am not a Christian." In my humble opinion, that is a rather poor stylistic approach.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the constructive criticism; I appreciate your notes and suggestions.

Perhaps, as it pertains to the Hume quote, I could integrate it into the flow of my text a bit better. Essentially, as I'm sure you realized, my first reason for not being a Christian is the fact that god is silent and inert: the deity says nothing, does nothing, and performs no miracles or prodigies any more. Thus, I think Hume's observation that miracles and prodigies--Acts of God--are most often found among ignorant, barbarous, pre-scientific peoples is salient.

As it relates to my "examples," yes, they might indeed be silly. But, in confecting them, my primary concern was proving not merely the miraculous...not merely the supernatural...not merely the divine...but Yahweh specifically. Corpse resurrection or any other garden-variety miracle would be insufficient to demonstrate the god of the Bible specifically. So, I co-opted a suggestion Carl Sagan made. He suggested that god engrave the Ten Commandments onto the Moon. I just went with Yahweh's name.

And, of course, vis-a-vis the Bible, you are correct that OT is much older than NT, and was written well before the first century. I will correct that point.

Again, I appreciate your notes.
 
MrFrankZito said:
I think Hume's observation that miracles and prodigies--Acts of God--are most often found among ignorant, barbarous, pre-scientific peoples is salient.
Click to expand...
A reference/sentence like that one you just wrote right there might be better in some cases than inserting a full quote.

As it relates to my "examples," yes, they might indeed be silly. But, in confecting them, my primary concern was proving not merely the miraculous...not merely the supernatural...not merely the divine...but Yahweh specifically.
Click to expand...
True miraculous events need not be grandiose and ridiculous. Something as "simple" as showing let's say the first 30 digits of a trascendental constant (like PI or e) not known until centuries/millenia later would have been pretty miraculous, without messing with planetary-scale formations.
 
Last edited:
rsaavedra said:
A reference/sentence like that one you just wrote right there might be better in some cases than inserting a full quote.


True miraculous events need not be grandiose and ridiculous. Something as "simple" as showing let's say the first 30 digits of a trascendental constant (like PI or e) not known until centuries/millenia later would have been pretty miraculous, without messing with planetary-scale formations.
Click to expand...


I made the factual correction you rightly suggested.

In the sentence in question, it no longer says "first century ignorance" but, rather, "pitiable pre-scientific ignorance."
 
Soapy Sam said:
Frank, why are you not a Muslim?
Click to expand...

The simplest answer is this: I am not a Muslim because my parents did not indoctrinate me into Islam but, rather, Roman Catholicism. I have never been a Muslim and, frankly, have given that particular faith little thought.

Nevertheless, using the limited knowledge I have about Islam, I think my first three arguments from the essay DO carry over.

* Allah, too, is silent and inert. Allah does nothing in the real world--has no hand in day-to-day life. If our universe were in the hands of a creator deity, that creator deity's presence would be apparent...would be known...would be beyond dispute or disagreement.

* The Qur'an, much like the Bible, presents no brand new information about the natural order. There is no textual reason to suppose it is anything other than a human work.

* Allah, too, did not reveal his religion to several geographically isolated populations. Islam did not arise independently all over the globe. It, much like Christianity, passes from population to population--not from deity to population several separate times.

Again, I know little about Islam. But, I think the core of my piece could be repurposed for that faith.
 
I agree it could. My point is that your essay seems to me less non-Christian than non-religious and might be better crafted that way.
Just my 2c.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I agree it could. My point is that your essay seems to me less non-Christian than non-religious and might be better crafted that way.
Just my 2c.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I am not simply a non-Christian; I am a metaphysical naturalist.

Any self-statement essay should have that positive upshot.
 
MrFrankZito said:
Following the path of atheists for whom I have a great deal of respect, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Carrier, I decided to make a brief statement of the principal reasons why I am not a Christian.

Myself a three-time contributor to Internet Infidels' Secular Web (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=authors&id=720), I was hoping members of this discussion forum might be able to provide some feedback on my medium-length (roughly 3000-word) essay.

I posted the piece on my personal blog site but, in hopes of wider publication online or elsewhere, I'd like to make the piece as strong as possible, while keeping the length reasonable.

Here is the link: http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-am-not-christian.html

Thank you for any feedback anyone might provide.
Click to expand...
You are a potential Christian, given your high score for preaching to the choir here. :D
 
Towlie said:
That's nice, Brian, but MrFrankZito is asking what we think of his article.
Click to expand...


I think that the main idea can be effectively conveyed without writing an essay filled with quotes by David Hume, J. B. S. Haldane, Jerry A. Coyne, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and so on.

An absurdly simplified argument such as my suggestion may be completely inadequate for an essay... but wouldn't the essay carry more impact if it were more concise?
 
Why do we need to justify not being Christians because of history and science?
This a trap.
For example.
Love your neighbor as yourself is not a law of nature or a historical fact. Its a free individual choice.
If I choose this, why should I now be called a Christian.
In fact from what we know about Christianity, this is the last thing on the majority of followers minds. Therefore I am not a follower.

I could argue about the other religious movements in the same manner.
That is why I am not a follower thereof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom