What do you object to about Christianity?

[enwar3]

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}

You are EXACTLY right. Science has axioms. Axioms and "scientific assumptions" can not be proved nor disproved. We use them because we know them not to be incorrect, and furthermore because they seem to hold with what we perceive. But that does not mean that the axioms are correct.

An implication of Godel's incompleteness theorem is that you cannot use the system to prove the system. We perceive as the laws of the universe mandate, and so we cannot use our perceptions to at the same time prove the laws of the universe.

EDIT: I'm going to bed because of work in the morning, but I'll try to read tomorrow. Interesting thread. Honestly, what we know to be true as humans is a controversial topic, and it's been on my mind lately, so it's cool we're talking about this.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are EXACTLY right. Science has axioms. Axioms and "scientific assumptions" can not be proved nor disproved. We use them because we know them not to be incorrect, and furthermore because they seem to hold with what we perceive. But that does not mean that the axioms are correct.

Cool story, bro. Unfortunately for you, "axioms" |= "religion." That's all.

An implication of Godel's incompleteness theorem is that you cannot use the system to prove the system.

Another cool story, bro. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

We perceive as the laws of the universe mandate, and so we cannot use our perceptions to at the same time prove the laws of the universe.

The "laws" of the universe are not the rules of a system. They are our abstractions of the observed regularities of the universe's behavior. The universe isn't ruled by any such "laws." The universe does whatever it will, and we make up those "laws" to explain our observations.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

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.

After His death, Jesus' followers were disillusioned. Peter even denied he knew Jesus. They were ready to return to their lives as fisherman because they thought it was over. After the resurrection, they boldly proclaimed the Gospel (Good News) and 11 of the 12 disciples were put to death. If it wasn't the resurrection, what suddenly changed?

 

[enwar3]

Cool story, bro. Unfortunately for you, "axioms" |= "religion." That's all.


Another cool story, bro. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


The "laws" of the universe are not the rules of a system. They are our abstractions of the observed regularities of the universe's behavior. The universe isn't ruled by any such "laws." The universe does whatever it will, and we make up those "laws" to explain our observations.

Is "cool story, bro" the best reply you can give? And what DOES the price of tea in China have to do with anything? I think we should just agree to disagree, at this point.

The "laws" of the universe are not the rules of a system. They are our abstractions of the observed regularities of the universe's behavior. The universe isn't ruled by any such "laws." The universe does whatever it will, and we make up those "laws" to explain our observations.

Exactly - "observed regularities." But observed does not mean absolute truth, or that what is observed today *must* be observed tomorrow. You're dead-on in saying that the scientific laws we have to explain our observations do not necessarily function as absolute truths, but rather only to "explain our observations." Indeed, the entire purpose of religion is to explain our observations. Science explains our observations in a way that makes sense to some people. For others, Christianity explains our observations best.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This thread is going places!

For once, in a truly long time here, I laughed out loud.

(a) I don't get the fact that God isn't a singular force. It isn't real monotheism.

Jesus is the reflection of God in man, the Holy Spirit is the presence of God in man.

(b) I don't understand the entire premise of why we need to be saved. Saved from what?

from the elimination of all things not-good

Why can't God, if it is all powerful, simply forgive?

God does, The question is only how far from God we want to be

Why does a God (who is supposed to be omnipotent and invincible) have to spawn off a third of himself to be sent for a sacrifice?

He doesn't, but a perfect example of doing what God would want is the same as being the reflection of God in man.

I'm curious why this elaborate logic must exist.

It doesn't have to, but I guess it's what God wanted to do... tell me, if history were any different would you still be the same you you are today? I like that I exist, so I'm cool with whatever history God's seen fit to share.

Why do we need to be forgiven? A single act of sin results in damnation?

our entirety of person hood is bound up in the collective set of our actions; we need the bits of us that are defined by our other-destructive behavior to be expunged

If God is just, how can that be? Why should original sin impact every human? Should we be responsible for what happened ?????? years ago?

The bad actions of others impact us be it a guy shooting you or a guy dumping toxic chemicals 50 years ago.

I'm with OP, hell and salvation of the believer are true enough but to simplistic an understanding when you look at what Jesus and the bible truly teach.

Some of the greatest minds in the world have wrestled with the trinity. It's a tough concept to get your head around.

what a condescending answer, the 'trinity' is simple the way it is taught is a mystery.

one more time: Jesus is the reflection (iconus in greek) of God, this makes him God just like my toon in wow is me; The Holy Spirit is the helper spirit in, this makes the Holy Ghost God just like killing pink-haired gnomes is me when people in my guild remember our guild name "Elite Gnome Gankers"... but a little more spiritual.

A good question is what wouldn't Jesus do: the answer is very little that doesn't hurt someone else.

from another understanding, is not talking about the trinity and is being wrongly interpreted.

so like yea: Jesus = Icon of God is 100% clear, spirit = Jesus is a little more 'iffy'.

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

do you know whether or not the Socratic method drives towards an answer at some point?

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.

fundamental tenets of Christianity as defined by you? YOUR interpretation of the bible?

Think about it man: you can't ask about 'Christianity' and say people are wrong because they don't seem to understand 'my-interpretation-of-the-bible-anity'.

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

'science', and I presume you are talking about positivism here, is based on a set of nomological, epistemological and ontological assumptions that one is not required to hold and still maintain a logical outlook on life.

That said: i like 'science' and it's related methodology, it's done some great stuff for me; but positivism has been , through positivism, falsified on the grounds that it argues that something can be falsified. A Bayesian model of probability works much better for 'science' than the high-school 'scientific method'.

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

stupid people do stupid things smart people out smart each other: then themselves, then themselves.

It does not appear to be true.

what is truth? seriously, empirically you can support the truth of all sorts of sociological constructs with both real and imagined origins.

Euclidean geometry is a religion because it has axioms.

Nothing IRL truly works the way euclidean geometry works, it is a set of abstractions just like everything else, it is empirically untrue but still true enough to make-due; so we take on faith it's basic usefulness.

all theory requires an abstraction of reality; that abstraction is in possibilities frontier that goes between explanatory ability and falsifiability.

Look, i know there's some stuff that isn't high-school science textbook here, but if you study the philosophy of science you're world will become a bigger place and your devout positivism will look much like a religion you once held dear a child (mostly true with some modifications).

Is "cool story, bro" the best reply you can give? And what DOES the price of tea in China have to do with anything? I think we should just agree to disagree, at this point.

this guy looks intentional obtuse at times; but only because you have failed to make a logical connection that you take as implicit.

 

[coreyb]

the part where it's holding back humankind from evolving.

 

[Vette73]

Q: What do you object to about Christianity?

A: Same thing I object to about a flasher, they can’t keep it to themselves.

 

[Kadarin]

I object to the fact that it's essentially a lot of made-up shit that's based on pretty much nothing.

 

[sdifox]

No mention of lawn chairs or popcorn?

???

lol people are wielding axes and pitchfork and you are going to sit there and watch? At least get a spoon.

 

[a123456]

I object to the fact that it's essentially a lot of made-up shit that's based on pretty much nothing.

Pretty much any large group of people will have okay people, cool people, and totally crazy people that go completely nuts. Unfortunately, it's crazy people that the most attention, media or otherwise. Christians or any other group are no different. There are the okay people that are mostly law-abiding and keep to themselves and attend church all the time and you don't really hear about them that much. Then, there are the extreme ones who kill millions of people in the name of religion (whether it's the Crusades, Inquisitions, or random murders committed every day). That's probably the brunt of the backlash against religion.

I know the OP in trying to do the opposite of the trite "don't hate the players, hate the game" type of argument, and it's true in some sense. Caveat is that you could replace Christianity with any major religion or even Communism and the same types of arguments hold up. The basic tenets are fine but a subset of the people following that belief are not right in the head.

There's no doubt that belief in science has improved the quality of life greatly around the world, lest we still be hunter-gatherers with a life expectancy of 30. But there's also a place for religion as a means to sort of bring up a moral code for those people that require something like that to lead happy lives. Whether that's belief in some consequence for afterlife intermixed with whatever deities is not really important. Some portion of the population is going to be fine as non-religious and will function fine. But I think most people recognize that there's also a large part of the population that needs religion in their lives to be happy.

In the name of Sid Meier, all those temples and cathedrals (including J.S. Bach's Cathedral and Michelangelo's Chapel) can be pretty awesome to keep civil unrest down even as you have SETI, the UN (haha), and Newton's College alongside them all.

 

[SlickSnake]

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.

We can't have a debate on what we object to about Christianity without talking about equal marriage rights, too, you know. That's pretty fashionable these days.

And I would like to finally be able to say that I'm LEGALLY married after being with the same person for over 25 YEARS, longer than half of you are even old and a longer time than most of your unholy marriages for insurance and tax purposes will even last. But alas, the constantly crusading Christian crazies won't allow my marriage. So I hate them. Seems fair enough though, don't you think? So why should I embrace their religious dogma and let it rule and ruin my life without mine or my partners consent?

()

 

[God Mode]

It's a pyramid scheme with propaganda that makes you complacent and apathetic against people that fuck you raw.

 

[totalnoob]

Watch Hitchens' opening statement at the link below (15 minutes, from 8:00 to 23:00). He f*cking destroys Christianity.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771#

 

[Miramonti]

What do you find objectionable about my replies, and specifically what is it about them that shows a lack of humility?

If I understand your reply, you have no objections to Christianity, you just dislike Christians.

Isn't rejecting Christianity because you dislike some Christains like rejecting education because you dislike some teachers?

That wouldn't seem to make much sense.

Christianity is the Alex Trebek of faith in Jesus.

Beyond that, your shallow smug 'turn everything into a question' is a good mockery of the very entity that you seem to want to identify yourself with.

 

[Fritzo]

I was forced into Catholic school from grades 4-7, worst years of my life and affirmed my hatred for all forms of organized religion(extortion).

The best part was we had these bullshit science textbooks that started out with the basis of why religion was more trustworthy than science and how the world was 7000something years old and man lived with dinosaurs because it said so in the bible. When it came to the tests for the book I never wrote down the religious explanations for questions and would get them wrong, I eventually got sent to the principal where I told her the book was full of shit and I had every right to put down what I believed.

They didn't bother me with that from then on

I think that whole experience was just an exercise for me on how to troll people. I finally convinced my parents to let me go to public school from 8th grade onwards (which I loved and excelled academically)

What Catholic school did you go to? I went to a Catholic school my entire childhood and they taught evolution with standard text books. I don't think you went to a Catholic school. Maybe a Christian" school- which leaves you open to all sorts of goofy ideas.

 

[sourceninja]

I object because all major religions have too many unanswered questions and refuse (sometimes get angry about it) to even try to find answers for them. Rather then find answers to questions, religion encourages you to just accept that 'god did it' and give up. It hurts progress. Further more, religion spawns fanatics who have held the world back for countless generations (dark ages, radical muslims, etc).

As a whole, I just feel the entire concept is flawed with too many unanswered questions and too much pointing to a book some humans wrote as the answer to everything. At least without religion we can accept the questions are unanswered and go about at least trying to find those answers.

For example, where did god come from?

 

[soulcougher73]

Everything.

 

[soulcougher73]

I object to the whole God gave us free will...oh yeah..but there are consequences for your actions. What the F kind of free will is that? I also object to the fact that all men & women are born sinners just beacuse someone named Adam & Eve decided to eat some fruit. That would be like my neighbor killing his wife and everyone in the world needs to be rounded up and put into jail because of it. Why blame me and hold me accountable for my neighbors action. That is just plain retarded as is religion.

 

[MJinZ]

I don't. I object to ignorance, through all forms of philosophies. See liberals and atheists for example.

But you're a Christian rite?

 

[Red Dawn]

But you're a Christian rite?

When it suits him.


Regarding Christianity, It seems to far fetched to be true, the whole thing from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Hell modern man has a hard time reporting things as they are, I sincerely doubt that a bunch of Ancient Sheep Buggering Shepherds could.

Of course if you want to believe it that's your prerogative, just don't try to convince me unless I inquire.

 

[actuarial]

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.

None of this applies to me, specifically because I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school for 14 years, and was an alter server and reader in my youth. My entire family is religious. I have a very real understanding of Catholics, the tenets of the faith, my beliefs are based on real life experience, and it is NOT fashionable in my family to dislike religion.

And please don't come in with any Catholicism is not a part of Christianity garbage.

I imagine you're wrong that people disagree with Christianity if you want to boil it down to the golden rule, and that's it. I don't disagree with people believing in God, much like I don't disagree with children believing in Santa.

The basic tenets of the religion that I disagree with:
-Those who are not baptized cannot go to heaven
-The idea that an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being would allow this world to exist

The widespread policies of the various denominations that I disagree with:
-*Lobbying to have Christian morality legally enforced on others (there are numerous examples of which I can list, but the items de jour are gay marriage and abortion)
-*Taking a policy of vanity over justice, especially when it concerns pedophilia
-Building extravagant monuments, even though it violates one of Jesus' most important teachings
-Attributing the good to actions of God but not the bad
-Selfish prayer
-*Spreading the word, even to people who have heard and rejected the word
-*Maintaining the status quo instead of evolving intellectually (this concerns religious policy, as well as the not uncommon clash with science)

If you are looking to why people here generally attack religious threads, or religious posts, you're probably looking at a case of one of the points with a *.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Easy: Virgin Birth and Resurrection; Creation.
Basically I object to it because it is disproven by science.

The definition of miracles is too convenient.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Having been baptized, been through catechism, and trained as an altar boy... the more I learned, the less things made sense. To me the single biggest problem is that they take stories literally that to me really shouldn't be. By taking them literally you end up putting yourself in a box where you MUST discount vast amounts of helpful things to maintain your position rather than incorporating it into your position.

Most religions have some basis in advocating tolerance and "love thy neighbor", however the more religious people get, the more they seem to forget that part.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Is "cool story, bro" the best reply you can give?

When you decide to make comments which are relevant to the debate, I will engage them.

And what DOES the price of tea in China have to do with anything? I think we should just agree to disagree, at this point.

It's an expression, noob. It means the things you're saying are not in dispute but have no bearing on the point of contention. They are irrelevant.

Exactly - "observed regularities." But observed does not mean absolute truth, or that what is observed today *must* be observed tomorrow. You're dead-on in saying that the scientific laws we have to explain our observations do not necessarily function as absolute truths, but rather only to "explain our observations." Indeed, the entire purpose of religion is to explain our observations. Science explains our observations in a way that makes sense to some people. For others, Christianity explains our observations best.

Good god, pay attention. The only point I'm making is that science is not a religion, despite your silly claim. If you are abandoning that position, then we are done. If you maintain it, then you're an idiot, and all my previous argumentation stands unrefuted. Can you try to focus? Or are you bringing up all this irrelevant bullshit to try to talk yourself around having to admit that your claim is as silly as I've shown it to be?

 

[BurnItDwn]

I object to the known fact that the grim reaper is such a damn good chess player.