I can't understand this -- and it certainly isn't a fact, because you have created the explanation out of thin air -- because the negative aspects of Christianity pale in comparison to those of other organisations and individuals. Further, he is considering 'hate' and recalling 'Christianity', not the other way round.
We live in a Christian society and are constantly bombarded not only by Christians and Christianity and Christian beliefs, but are generally subjected to Christian moralism. Christianity is in our face constantly. I would leave it at that, but it seems that you require that your 'opponent' spell everything out clearly. That Christianity is constantly down our throats exacerbates discontent against it. It becomes irritating and annoying, even oppressive. In a later post you wonder why somebody would specifically target Christianity when (as
you, not I claim) the negative aspects of it are outweighed by the negative aspects of other religions. That is one reason. You also falsely implied a correlation between things being worse and hating things more.
Heaven is a permanent concept. What of it is not final?
Are you seriously asking of eternity what of it is not final? The very concept of eternal life necessitates that there is no finality. There can be no end to eternity, or it ceases to be eternal. I am not sure how much more simply I can explain this, but if you still don't get it, I could take another crack at it.
Again, let's not put the cart before the horse: I am saying that people exposed to tragedy and negative life experiences are more likely to struggle with their faith and subsequently lose it, not that nonbelievers have had tragic lives.
That is a trivial and insignificant proposition against which nobody argued. Obviously the emotionally frail and weak are more easily swayed by life experiences.
Emotion and intuition are both potentially just as valid as pure reason.
Not in questions of reason. The question of whether or not there is a god is not within the realm of emotion and intuition. That some choose to employ emotion and intuition in answering this question has no bearing on the pure fact that such a question is a matter of science.
In addendum, in a later post you cite Einstein and Galileo as examples of intuitive science. What you fail to cite is that their intuitions were based on facts and research and were projections based on their findings, many of which were later prove through reason and observation. Intuition and emotion can serve reasoning, but for either ever to rule over reason is a dangerous thing, as even Socrates knew.
If everything around you suggested that your current way of thinking was wrong, would you not change it? If a person who at the age of fourteen loses both parents in a car crash after praying every day and not consciously committing any sins, do you not think it's reasonable for them to reconsider their faith?
I hope you recognize that these are two completely different questions, one being more likely to be rooted in logic and the other rooted in emotion. Of course if God came down from heaven and gave me a high five, I would believe in him and I would be foolish not to do so given that all other possible explanations for such an occurrence were ruled out. That answers the first question.
In answering the second question, I go back to your example of Einstein. His intuitions led to his reasoning as in this instance the boy's emotions lead to his reasoning, or at least I would hope. His emotional reactions to his parents' deaths potentially lead him to question the basis of his beliefs and he then potentially discards them on logical grounds. In this sense is it 'reasonable.' Your faith (which is different from a belief) should not be shaken by tragedy. If you have faith in God's divine plan and that everything in the world happens as this benevolent entity designed it, then you should not question his existence because your parents died.
If the unfolding of life doesn't change your beliefs at least now and again then you are probably very shut down and arrogant in your way of thinking. I know humans are obsessed with consistency but being open to change is an essential aspect of pesonal growth.
We are speaking on the grounds of reason. Reason does not sway upon the whim of the mere happenstances of everyday life. My faculties of reason are not altered when I suffer a tragic event; rather, my reasoning is hindered, and it is my emotions that are controlling. "The unfolding of life," ambiguous a statement as it is," has the power to change one's beliefs insofar as, I can only assume given the term's ambiguity, the learning of new facts and things of this nature will be required in the process. Beliefs (beliefs, not matters of faith; "facts") are changed and are adaptable to new information. It is in this sense that my beliefs are shaped by my life, in the recipience of new information which validates or nullifies the things which I held to be true, and I adapt accordingly.
