What do you object to about Christianity?

[OutHouse]

ROFLMAO!!! I shake my head in pity of you, sorry, but that's a fact.

which part do you feel sorry for me? that there is no proof humans evolved from monkeys and alge or that there is no proof that God created man?

interesting quote you have in your sig. just curious but did you know that Paine was a free mason? and you do know that in order to be a mason one has to believe in a God. So what statement are you trying to make that Paine was an atheist?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You might raise the point that science does not have a firm explanation for the emergence of cognition or consciousness.

No. I raise the point that we can never know something fully and in a social-psychological context the explanatory power of faith, religion, belief, marketing, myth and ceremony are much better at explaining and predicting than biology alone is.

that it automatically means it's something that science cannot explain.

Science (empiricism) is already explaining our social-cognitive world and faith is a central part of it; even if you have no religion.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

sorry but our evolutionary origins are not linked to ANYTHING other than ourselves period. there is no proof we humans evolved from anything.

just look back the past 30 years at what was taught in school. we came from monkeys, and look! here is Lucy which proves we are ancestors of ancient monkeys... Lucy is EVE!! now just last year science is leaning towards that modern man and hominids like Lucy coexisted and we arent related at all or even in the same gene pool.

so yea like i said neither side can absolutely prove their argument.

I think it's clear you don't even know the first thing about this topic. Monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor; humans did not evolve from monkeys. Even if changes in the timeline are emerging from new evidence, that does not negate the theory. It's an indication that we are getting closer to the truth. You have provided no reasoning behind your claim that human origins can never be understood or proven.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

No. I raise the point that we can never know something fully and in a social-psychological context the explanatory power of faith, religion, belief, marketing, myth and ceremony are much better at explaining and predicting than biology alone is.

Please provide one example where faith or religion accurately explains a natural phenomenon better than science. Keep in mind that having an explanation is not always better than not.

Edit: On second thought, nevermind. If your belief is that we can never know something fully (and that that is somehow an argument against science in favor of faith), I see no reason why you would hold one explanation any better than another on literally any topic. You may disregard my question as I assume you have no coherent answer.

 

[LtPage1]

which part do you feel sorry for me? that there is no proof humans evolved from monkeys and alge or that there is no proof that God created man?

interesting quote you have in your sig. just curious but did you know that Paine was a free mason? and you do know that in order to be a mason one has to believe in a God. So what statement are you trying to make that Paine was an atheist?

There's no proof that gravity exists, either. When (effectively) the entire scientific community agrees on something, I think we can operate on that as a given. Evolution is observable; stronger specimens just tend to do better than weaker ones. It's really not that mysterious or complicated, and there are millions of years of fossil evidence to back that up.

The whole point of "science" is that we don't know everything, but that we will continue to learn about our surroundings through careful observation and application of rational thought and logic.

You can claim that creationism and religion are somehow alternatives to that, but you'll never convince very many clear-thinking people if you follow hundreds of years of hard evidence and reason with, "Ok, but what if instead of all that, a bunch of men who got together and wrote a book a few thousand years ago got everything literally right?"

"I just thought of something, so it's an alternative to your reason, evidence, and logic" is not believable.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

which part do you feel sorry for me? that there is no proof humans evolved from monkeys and alge or that there is no proof that God created man?

interesting quote you have in your sig. just curious but did you know that Paine was a free mason? and you do know that in order to be a mason one has to believe in a God. So what statement are you trying to make that Paine was an atheist?

Paine was a theist, but was not religious. While he was delusional enough to believe in a god he had the common sense (get it, ha ha) to disavow all religions. And since this thread is about the most delusional religion of all it's even more appropriate.

If you dispute evolution that proves that you don't have the brains of either monkeys or algae. Every animal in the human genetic is ashamed that you turned out like this. And for that, I feel sorry for you. For your willingness to prove your ignorance I feel sorry for you. For the fact that you can't even grasp that you prove yourself even more stupid every time you post I feel sorry for you.

 

[OutHouse]

Paine was a theist, but was not religious. While he was delusional enough to believe in a god he had the common sense (get it, ha ha) to disavow all religions. And since this thread is about the most delusional religion of all it's even more appropriate.

If you dispute evolution that proves that you don't have the brains of either monkeys or algae. Every animal in the human genetic is ashamed that you turned out like this. And for that, I feel sorry for you. For your willingness to prove your ignorance I feel sorry for you. For the fact that you can't even grasp that you prove yourself even more stupid every time you post I feel sorry for you.

ah personal attacks for disagreeing with you. thats the spirit of science!!!

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

ah personal attacks for disagreeing with you. thats the spirit of science!!!

It has little to do with science and more to do with a natural reaction to conversing with the painfully overconfident and uninformed.

 

[jpeyton]

Einstein: The word "God" is a product of human weakness

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html

So to the atheists/non-theists in this thread, I plead with you to take pity on the weak; don't prey on their stupidity.

 

[TheAdvocate]

A few reasons:

1. The existence of God cannot be proven. While I might understand how some people explore the possibility of an existence of a God, I cannot understand how people have an absolute conviction in the existence of something that cannot be proven. That level of conviction is, by definition, non-rational. I find it frustrating to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that their certainty (in something you cannot be certain of) is a fundamental gap between us. It's even more frustrating when that person tries to persuade me to abandon a well-reasoned understanding of the world for something with no evidence, that asks me to change my life, and has no visible benefit.

2. I can look into history and see many things done in the name of Christianity that were abhorrent things, like the Inquisition and the Crusades. I can look at the present day and see things being done in the name of Christianity that are abhorrent things, like the Waco or the potential death penalty for gays in Uganda. I think that it is reasonable to predict more abhorrent things will be done in the name of Christianity in the future and that is enough reason, in my opinion, to dismantle the institution in protection of human rights.

3. The Bible contains contradictions (Thou shalt not kill / God makes the Israealites a massive war force, love thy neighbor / put sinners out of the congregation, no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female / homosexuality is a sin) that indicate to me Christianity is inconsistent and that the present-day interpretation(s) are merely the most current spin on a social construct that has always been bent to fit the society it's in. I believe that the current interpretations are behind the societal curve and, given the power that Christianity has in the western world right now, that it is slowing the progress of social evolution and hurting individual people in the process.

4. I am offended by the idea that Christians have set up a narrow and arbitrary standard of who is saved and who is not saved and have marked me in a not-saved bucket simply because I don't take actions that I see as nonsensical and potentially harmful. They disregard whatever good I do in the world and instead they often abrasively accuse and threaten me. It's a very unpleasant and negative experience.

5. I witness Christians giving money to those who misuse it, giving power to those who wield it poorly, and supporting those who are hypocritical. I see that they often choose leadership poorly and vehemently and almost hysterically defend their leadership even after the leadership has been proven in scandal and a betrayal of their trust. This provides even more evidence to me that Christians are attached en masse to the idea of their religion, are operating on groupthink rather than individual critical reasoning, and that is distasteful to me and supports my original suspicion that they are clinging to the idea of a God without proof and not because of legitimate open-minded exploration and experience.

Oh, and by the way, I am a lifelong Christian, mostly in the Anglican tradition with some touches of evangelical background. I wrote my post from the perspective of a non-Christian because from that viewpoint I absolutely understand why they would dislike, distrust and disbelieve Christianity. The above are only a few examples of why.

Honestly, as a Christian, if you can't look at the history and current state of Christianity and how it interacts with the non-Christian world and FIGURE OUT why people dislike it, you are not doing nearly enough self-evaluation. The unexamined faith, where you refuse to consider it from all sides and contemplate the potential pitfalls and how you answer them, is no real faith at all.

Every once in a while, I glance at these religion threads, looking for something honest and thought provoking, and I almost always leave disappointed and wonder why I bothered.

Not this time.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

ah personal attacks for disagreeing with you. thats the spirit of science!!!

Not for disagreeing with me Zippy for disagreeing with what has been proven as true. I know your invisible man in the sky rewards ignorance and wants you to stay that way. But around here if you say unfathomably stupid things you get laughed at. It's a Darwinian place, survival of the fittest ideas. But I don't expect you to understand the concept of Darwinism. Too bad, the irony is really amusing.

 

[OutHouse]

It has little to do with science and more to do with a natural reaction to conversing with the painfully overconfident and uninformed.

pot,,, kettle....

 

[sdifox]

so we got stonecutters here too!

 

[rainypickles]

A few reasons:

1. The existence of God cannot be proven. While I might understand how some people explore the possibility of an existence of a God, I cannot understand how people have an absolute conviction in the existence of something that cannot be proven. That level of conviction is, by definition, non-rational. I find it frustrating to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that their certainty (in something you cannot be certain of) is a fundamental gap between us. It's even more frustrating when that person tries to persuade me to abandon a well-reasoned understanding of the world for something with no evidence, that asks me to change my life, and has no visible benefit.

2. I can look into history and see many things done in the name of Christianity that were abhorrent things, like the Inquisition and the Crusades. I can look at the present day and see things being done in the name of Christianity that are abhorrent things, like the Waco or the potential death penalty for gays in Uganda. I think that it is reasonable to predict more abhorrent things will be done in the name of Christianity in the future and that is enough reason, in my opinion, to dismantle the institution in protection of human rights.

3. The Bible contains contradictions (Thou shalt not kill / God makes the Israealites a massive war force, love thy neighbor / put sinners out of the congregation, no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female / homosexuality is a sin) that indicate to me Christianity is inconsistent and that the present-day interpretation(s) are merely the most current spin on a social construct that has always been bent to fit the society it's in. I believe that the current interpretations are behind the societal curve and, given the power that Christianity has in the western world right now, that it is slowing the progress of social evolution and hurting individual people in the process.

4. I am offended by the idea that Christians have set up a narrow and arbitrary standard of who is saved and who is not saved and have marked me in a not-saved bucket simply because I don't take actions that I see as nonsensical and potentially harmful. They disregard whatever good I do in the world and instead they often abrasively accuse and threaten me. It's a very unpleasant and negative experience.

5. I witness Christians giving money to those who misuse it, giving power to those who wield it poorly, and supporting those who are hypocritical. I see that they often choose leadership poorly and vehemently and almost hysterically defend their leadership even after the leadership has been proven in scandal and a betrayal of their trust. This provides even more evidence to me that Christians are attached en masse to the idea of their religion, are operating on groupthink rather than individual critical reasoning, and that is distasteful to me and supports my original suspicion that they are clinging to the idea of a God without proof and not because of legitimate open-minded exploration and experience.

Oh, and by the way, I am a lifelong Christian, mostly in the Anglican tradition with some touches of evangelical background. I wrote my post from the perspective of a non-Christian because from that viewpoint I absolutely understand why they would dislike, distrust and disbelieve Christianity. The above are only a few examples of why.

Honestly, as a Christian, if you can't look at the history and current state of Christianity and how it interacts with the non-Christian world and FIGURE OUT why people dislike it, you are not doing nearly enough self-evaluation. The unexamined faith, where you refuse to consider it from all sides and contemplate the potential pitfalls and how you answer them, is no real faith at all.

awesomeness. as for #1, i ask "why this one?" when comparing with other religions. many have their own holy books with 'facts' that can't be proven. why choose christianity then? the best answer you can ever get is "it's because it's true! god/bible said so!"

 

[OutHouse]

Not for disagreeing with me Zippy for disagreeing with what has been proven as true. I know your invisible man in the sky rewards ignorance and wants you to stay that way. But around here if you say unfathomably stupid things you get laughed at. It's a Darwinian place, survival of the fittest ideas. But I don't expect you to understand the concept of Darwinism. Too bad, the irony is really amusing.

wow you are very smart!!! you use such big words and put little ole me down. please oh please I hope one day i am as smart and educated and enlightened as you are.

lol not. i find your 'elitist' im better than you a bore. its clear you are so "educated" and know everything that having a reasonable discussion with you is a impossibility.

FYI Paine was a Deist not a theist. Interesting you quote a man to reinforce your atheist beliefs but don't even know what Paine's belief structure actually was. lol guess you aren't as smart as you think you are.

totally epic.

 

[BurnItDwn]

wow you are very smart!!! you use such big words and put little ole me down. please oh please I hope one day i am as smart and educated and enlightened as you are.

lol not. i find your 'elitist' im better than you a bore. its clear you are so "educated" and know everything that having a reasonable discussion with you is a impossibility.

FYI Paine was a Deist not a theist. Interesting you quote a man to reinforce your atheist beliefs but don't even know what Paine's belief structure actually was. lol guess you aren't as smart as you think you are.

totally epic.

Uhh, part of Deism is belief that a "supreme being" created the universe. Theists are those who believe in a "supreme being." Thus, Deism is a subset of theism.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Uhh, part of Deism is belief that a "supreme being" created the universe. Theists are those who believe in a "supreme being." Thus, Deism is a subset of theism.

This will surely devolve into a semantic argument. Theism might be taken to mean specifically the belief in an influential and meddlesome deity -- in which case that excludes deism -- and that's clearly what OutHouse is grasping at. In the more general sense that theism is simply belief in a god regardless of his involvement, you're certainly right that deism is a subset.

Either way, the fact that OutHouse would consider this his epic "gotcha" moment is quite telling and I think this should be his cue to bow out if he seeks to retain any dignity whatsoever.

 

[AreaCode707]

Every once in a while, I glance at these religion threads, looking for something honest and thought provoking, and I almost always leave disappointed and wonder why I bothered.

Not this time.

Every once in a while I spend an hour writing a post on ATOT and get all troll responses and wonder why I bothered. This wasn't one of those times for me either.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

in a social-psychological context the explanatory power of faith, religion, belief, marketing, myth and ceremony are much better at explaining and predicting than biology alone is.

Please provide one example where faith or religion accurately explains a natural phenomenon better than science. Keep in mind that having an explanation is not always better than not.

I'm not talking about the velocity of an egg falling from a plane, I'm talking about what people think of eggs. Physics is important, but ultimately, just like everything else, it is an abstraction of reality base on preconceived notions that we just 'accept'. Biology is important and it is more than simply applied chemistry.

I'm talking about the human level; understanding how and why people do what they do and think what they think.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I'm not talking about the velocity of an egg falling from a plane, I'm talking about what people think of eggs. Physics is important, but ultimately, just like everything else, it is an abstraction of reality base on preconceived notions that we just 'accept'. Biology is important and it is more than simply applied chemistry.

I'm talking about the human level; understanding how and why people do what they do and think what they think.

So your argument is that religion can help us explain or predict personal or societal opinions of eggs where science cannot. I think I can safely rest my case. Even if you were just trying to be cute, I think it's also safe to say that faith is no substitute for psychology or sociology, even though they may be young fields of study.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

COB: Faith does not describe or predict things in the physical world
DC: Does faith have as little explanatory power in our social, cognitive and emotional world?
COB: Emphatically I say yes, as by all indications those are extensions of our physical world
DC: Science (empiricism) is already explaining our social-cognitive world and faith is a central part of it; even if you have no religion.
COB: Please provide one example where faith or religion accurately explains a natural phenomenon better than science.
DC: Again, I'm not talking about physical phenomenon but sociol-cognitive. Faith is central to our understanding of reality.
COB:I think it's also safe to say that faith is no substitute for psychology or sociology.

I'm not saying faith explains better than biological, sociological or psychological predictions. I'm not saying what you keeps saying I am saying, I am saying exactly what i said :"the explanatory power of faith, religion, belief, marketing, myth and ceremony are much better at explaining and predicting than biology alone is".

Here are some well respected empirical studies that support this point of view:

Socially:

Meyer, John. W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.

DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48:147-160.

Michael Lounsbury (2001). "Institutional Sources of Practice Variation: Staffing College and University Recycling Programs." In: Administrative Science Quarterly.Vol 46. pp.29–56.

Michael Lounsbury (2007). "A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds." In: Academy of Management Journal. Vol 50. pp.289–307.

Cognitively:

Karel Weick-

1976, "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems." Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-19.

1984, with Richard L Daft, "Toward a model of organizations as Interpretation systems". Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review (pre-1986); 9; pg. 284; Apr 1984.

1988, "Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situation", in: Journal of Management Studies. 25:4, pp. 305–317, July, 1988.

2005, with Kathleen M Sutcliffe and, David Obstfeld, "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking", in: Organization Science. Vol. 16, 4, p. 409-421, Jul/Aug, 2005.

 

[destrekor]

FYI Paine was a Deist not a theist. Interesting you quote a man to reinforce your atheist beliefs but don't even know what Paine's belief structure actually was. lol guess you aren't as smart as you think you are.

totally epic.

I can respect Deism.

The only similar link between Deism and Theism is the fact that both share a belief in a creator of everything. Now, I cannot recall which specific degree of Deism Paine would fall under... be it a belief in the master architect that also created humans and everything we know it as it be, or a weak Deism in which the Deity(ies) created the Universe, and everything after just sort of happened.
Regardless, both degrees (with some middle-ground) do focus on the architect acting out only that role - human affairs, at the minimum, are completely ignored. It doesn't do the whole judgment thing, it doesn't perform miracles - it simply put everything in place to some extent.

I say I can respect that, because imho it seems a more reasonable, logical approach. I personally don't even believe in that much, but with little evidence (the fun analogy of the universe as an ant-farm/sandbox for a higher being) to discredit that, I cannot say with 100% certainty there is no such higher being. Statistically, we cannot be the most advanced beings that exists, or at least has existed, in this universe. Whose to say super smart aliens don't play god to lesser creatures? Then again, that would be a false-Deity, not one that had a hand in the creation of the universe. Some other, super-crazy creature that could escape the fabric of it's own universe into the greater multiverse could, in this line of thought, be such a Deity.
But... that's just an irrelevant segue in discussion.

 

[JulesMaximus]

We're all fucking doomed. I, for one, welcome the impending religious wars...it's too bad that bullshit will likely wipe out humanity.

I think we were capable of so much more...then again, it was probably inevitable.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

COB: Faith does not describe or predict things in the physical world
DC: Does faith have as little explanatory power in our social, cognitive and emotional world?
COB: Emphatically I say yes, as by all indications those are extensions of our physical world
DC: Science (empiricism) is already explaining our social-cognitive world and faith is a central part of it; even if you have no religion.
COB: Please provide one example where faith or religion accurately explains a natural phenomenon better than science.
DC: Again, I'm not talking about physical phenomenon but sociol-cognitive. Faith is central to our understanding of reality.
COB:I think it's also safe to say that faith is no substitute for psychology or sociology.

I'm not saying faith explains better than biological, sociological or psychological predictions. I'm not saying what you keeps saying I am saying, I am saying exactly what i said :"the explanatory power of faith, religion, belief, marketing, myth and ceremony are much better at explaining and predicting than biology alone is".

I don't feel I've misrepresented your point at all. When I requested an example, I specified natural phenomenon, which does not exclude the social or cognitive. You failed to provide even the most basic evidence that faith explains or predicts reality in any way -- including human behavior -- especially not better than science, which is precisely the right tool for doing so.

Rereading your statement, I'm not sure if you are taking issue with "biology alone." If you are, I don't know why. Regardless, I think the point stands: In short, I hold that any "explanatory power" (if there is any at all) in religion has long since been surpassed by many other fields.

I will take a look at the studies you provided when I have some time, but since you apparently have had the advantage of reading them, it might not be out of the question to ask for you to offer a single salient supporting example or argument from them.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

We're all fucking doomed. I, for one, welcome the impending religious wars...it's too bad that bullshit will likely wipe out humanity.

I think we were capable of so much more...then again, it was probably inevitable.

Thread/