What do you object to about Christianity?

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Are you sure you're asking people questions to better understand them and don't have a hidden agenda?

I'm curious about all the hatred here of Chrustianity and am trying to understand why.

What do you think my hidden agenda is?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Do they still teach the Socratic Method in school these days?

 

[SSSnail]

I'm curious about all the hatred here of Chrustianity and am trying to understand why.

What do you think my hidden agenda is?

Why do you think people here hate Chrustianity?

 

[Soundmanred]

Why do you think people here hate Chrustianity?

Why do you think he thinks that people here think that they hate Chrestianity?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Why do you think he thinks that people here think that they hate Chrestianity?

I don't think you worded this quite right, but I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of people here disdain Christianity.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

See my post just above. And our founding fathers were Christians. Whether other religions had some/all of the same principles is irrelevant.

Bull-fucking-shit, it's "irrelevant"! These "principles" -- which you have heretofore failed to enumerate -- are likely* more fundamental to humanity than simply features of your favorite ritualism. You don't get to call them "Christian principles" just because (you allege, dubiously) the people that wrote the Constitution were Christians.

So, which "principles," exactly, do you think are unique to Christianity and were premises upon which the United States was founded? Please, Poindexter, illuminate me.

I won't hold my breath.

*) naturally, I must say "likely" because I have no idea which principles you're talking about, and I reckon you don't either.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Why do you think people here hate Chrustianity?

I can only speak about the people that have posted in this thread. This is only my opinion, but it appears that they dislike Christianity because:

1. They have a poor perception, real or imagined, of Christians.
2. They have a poor understanding of the fundamental tenets of Christianity.
3. They base their opinion on stereotypes rather than real life experience.
4. It's fashionable.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Religion is a fact of life.. science is a religion too, but most people don't take time to think about it.

Science is a method. Please, try to keep up.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A religion is a worldview that ultimately takes something on faith. For Christians it's that the Bible is the true source of wisdom. Science is a worldview that assumes repeatability and observability - that's the scientific procedure. That the universe will always behave the same and that the universe always behaves observably is something that scientists take on faith. HOWEVER, scientists find this acceptable because this is the worldview that makes the most sense. In other words, for scientists, if some assumption must be made, repeatability and observability of the universe makes the most sense.

Do you know what they say about somebody that repeatedly does the same thing over and over but expects different results?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I can only speak about the people that have posted in this thread. This is only my opinion, but it appears that they dislike Christianity because:

1. They have a poor perception, real or imagined, of Christians.
2. They have a poor understanding of the fundamental tenets of Christianity.
3. They base their opinion on stereotypes rather than real life experience.
4. It's fashionable.

My answer is not represented on this list. Is it just because you missed it? Or is it because you can't rebut it?

 

[Taejin]

Creationism.

Oh and I also hate the completely unjustified self-perceived moral superiority.

HOW CAN YOU BE A MORAL PERSON IF YOU DONT HAVE A RELIGION!!!N##

just another example of religious retardedness

although i guess its not necessarily the religion that made them retarded. religion gives them a powerful incentive to believe they make any sort of sense though..

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

My answer is not represented on this list. Is it just because you missed it? Or is it because you can't rebut it?

It's a long thread. Refresh my memory.

I'm not looking to rebut anything. It's your choice to believe whatever you want.

 

[enwar3]

Do you know what they say about somebody that repeatedly does the same thing over and over but expects different results?

Let's talk about the nature of religion as opposed to personal attacks =) I've spent some time thinking about religion, whether it's a human construct, etc. Would just like to see what others think.

As for the tenets of repeatability and observability, it's not too hard to imagine that there are things that we can't perceive. I mean, only technology was able to reveal to us that there are wavelengths of light that we cannot perceive. It's not too far of a stretch to think that, perhaps, there is a medium that none of our senses can detect. What if we could only perceive a portion of the universe, based on how our senses detect the world? Our understanding of the universe would then be clearly limited.

A big question for lots of determinists and scientists in general is how the world came into being. If repeatability (which stems from determinism) can explain everything, than how can we hope to understand how the universe began?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

HOW CAN YOU BE A MORAL PERSON IF YOU DONT HAVE A RELIGION!!!N##

just another example of religious retardedness

although i guess its not necessarily the religion that made them retarded. religion gives them a powerful incentive to believe they make any sort of sense though..

Did someone say that you can't be a moral person if you're not a Christian? I must have missed it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's a long thread. Refresh my memory.

I'm not looking to rebut anything. It's your choice to believe whatever you want.

Well, you could've just followed the link.

My primary objection to Christianity is that it does not appear to be true.

 

[enwar3]

My answer is not represented on this list. Is it just because you missed it? Or is it because you can't rebut it?

I will try to address your answer.

Every person has their own understanding of the world - and really, those who take the time to ponder its nature have already far surpassed the majority. After thinking about the universe and how your own life fits into it, people come to choose a worldview that they feel is most consistent with what they see, how they feel, and what they understand to be true.

You seem to have chosen (?) non-religion, which is still a worldview, because it seems to make the most sense to you. Clearly everything else is wrong; you'd have to think everything else is wrong to really believe what you believe.

Others, however, came to the conclusion that Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, or some other religion may be most consistent or perhaps the most empowering worldview for themselves - after following the same process of questioning your surroundings that you may have followed yourself. To me, it seems fair to say that your view is valid for you, and a religious person's view is valid for them. One of those views is probably right, and I guess we'll find out when we die.

Though of course we all think we already know. =)

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Well, you could've just followed the link.

My primary objection to Christianity is that it does not appear to be true.

Sorry, I didn't notice the link.

The list was my response to the question of why I think people in this thread hate Christianity.

Your objection is vague to me. What about Christianity doesn't appear to be true? The virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles..?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Let's talk about the nature of religion as opposed to personal attacks =) I've spent some time thinking about religion, whether it's a human construct, etc. Would just like to see what others think.

As for the tenets of repeatability and observability, it's not too hard to imagine that there are things that we can't perceive. I mean, only technology was able to reveal to us that there are wavelengths of light that we cannot perceive. It's not too far of a stretch to think that, perhaps, there is a medium that none of our senses can detect. What if we could only perceive a portion of the universe, based on how our senses detect the world? Our understanding of the universe would then be clearly limited.

A big question for lots of determinists and scientists in general is how the world came into being. If repeatability (which stems from determinism) can explain everything, than how can we hope to understand how the universe began?

DERP DERP DERP.

First, this has really nothing to do with my (sparsely explained, admittedly) point that science is not a religion, or a worldview, as you have so wrongly claimed. Science is a method. Naturalism is a worldview. Many scientists are naturalists. Many scientists are not. They all still do the same science despite their differing worldviews because science is not a worldview. It is a method. A METHOD.

Secondly, cosmologists generally do not concern themselves with the origin of the universe, primarily because nobody has ever demonstrated one to exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sorry, I didn't notice the link.

The list was my response to the question of why I think people in this thread hate Christianity.

Your objection is vague to me. What about Christianity doesn't appear to be true? The virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles..?

Take your pick. Basically, I think that a person existed about whom the Jesus myth has been built, but I do not believe there exists adequate evidence to accept the extraordinary claims that have been made about him.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You seem to have chosen (?) non-religion, which is still a worldview...

Like baldness is a hair color.

...because it seems to make the most sense to you. Clearly everything else is wrong; you'd have to think everything else is wrong to really believe what you believe.

I think its a little more subtle that you suppose. Basically all coherent worldviews postulate that solipsism is false, but I don't have to believe that other worldviews are wrong about that. Therefore, I do not have to "think everything else is wrong."

Others, however, came to the conclusion that Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, or some other religion may be most consistent or perhaps the most empowering worldview for themselves - after following the same process of questioning your surroundings that you may have followed yourself. To me, it seems fair to say that your view is valid for you, and a religious person's view is valid for them.

That doesn't really answer my objection, though it is an interesting thought on its own. To be very specific, I do not believe that other worldviews, particularly Christianity in this case, are "invalid." I do not think that Christianity is true, however.

One of those views is probably right, and I guess we'll find out when we die.

Not necessarily.

Though of course we all think we already know. =)

Please do not purport to tell me what I think.

 

[enwar3]

DERP DERP DERP.

First, this has really nothing to do with my (sparsely explained, admittedly) point that science is not a religion, or a worldview, as you have so wrongly claimed. Science is a method. Naturalism is a worldview. Many scientists are naturalists. Many scientists are not. They all still do the same science despite their differing worldviews because science is not a worldview. It is a method. A METHOD.

Secondly, cosmologists generally do not concern themselves with the origin of the universe, primarily because nobody has ever demonstrated one to exist.

It's a method, but it still takes central tenets on faith, which is the definition of religion. Again, it takes repeatability and observability on faith. They're taken on faith because neither phenomenon can be proven to be true. Repeatability and observability are the framework in which the scientific method is created. The scientific method works precisely because of those two assumptions.

Most great thinkers realize that repeatability and observability are the limitations of science.

My challenge to you would be to prove repeatability (that the same situation will yield the same results) and observability (that anything that is, can be observed). As long as they are theories, science is a religion.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Take your pick. Basically, I think that a person existed about whom the Jesus myth has been built, but I do not believe there exists adequate evidence to accept the extraordinary claims that have been made about him.

I reject that, and here's why. When the Gospels were written, there were people living that were contemporaneous with Jesus. If it was all make believe, the people that were there with Jesus certainly would have said "I was there, that didn't happen! This all a crock!".

Plus, may of Jesus' followers died horrible deaths. If he died, and that was the end, would they have done so? Would you die for a lie? They were willing to die because they personally witnessed a resurrected savior.

 

[enwar3]

I reject that, and here's why. When the Gospels were written, there were people living that were contemporaneous with Jesus. If it was all make believe, the people that were there with Jesus certainly would have said "I was there, that didn't happen! This all a crock!".

Plus, may of Jesus' followers died horrible deaths. If he died, and that was the end, would they have done so? Would you die for a lie? They were willing to die because they personally witnessed a resurrected savior.

I understand that second point from an anecdotal point of view, but I think it is hard to build an argument around it. There are lots of people who die for what they believe in, and so many people have contradictory beliefs. So somebody must believe something that is not necessarily true. Just because somebody dies for something doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's a method, but it still takes central tenets on faith, which is the definition of religion. Again, it takes repeatability and observability on faith. They're taken on faith because neither phenomenon can be proven to be true. Repeatability and observability are the framework in which the scientific method is created. The scientific method works precisely because of those two assumptions.

Still full of fail. Your claim is as silly as saying that Euclidean geometry is a religion because it has axioms. They're "taken on faith" as much as any scientific assumption. Are you ready to say that anybody using trigonometry is practicing a religion? You're abusing language, basically, most likely to further some agenda, even if it is a private one.



{snip more DERP}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I reject that, and here's why. When the Gospels were written, there were people living that were contemporaneous with Jesus. If it was all make believe, the people that were there with Jesus certainly would have said "I was there, that didn't happen! This all a crock!".

Investigative journalism is an advent of the nineteenth century. Not the first century. Your assertion is bare, and rejected for lack of support.

Plus, may of Jesus' followers died horrible deaths. If he died, and that was the end, would they have done so? Would you die for a lie? They were willing to die because they personally witnessed a resurrected savior.

Look, man, this ain't my first rodeo. You're going to have to do better than parroting a few buzzwords you've read off an apologetics website. I guarantee you, I've seen them before.

Regarding the "die for a lie" canard, to defend that assertion you'd have to demonstrate that any of the apostles who were allegedly martyred for their beliefs would have been spared had they recounted. Good luck with that one. Otherwise they just died. That's not to mention that a person who earnestly believes that something is true is not a reliable indicator of the truth of that belief.

Do you have any idea how many non-christian people were martyred by Christians? For that matter, do you realize how many Muslim believers suicide because they believe what their religion teaches? Does that mean that their beliefs must be true? They wouldn't die for a lie, would they?