What are your main beefs with Christianity?

[cosmosdan]

@Kalhoun

Hmmm…I don’t think superstition is a universal human trait. There’s a difference between believing something and then learning it isn’t true, and believing something despite all evidence to the contrary.

A huge difference indeed. One that I think atheists should notice as well. There’s a difference between beliefs you can refute with plenty of evidence such as Creationism, the Bible as the literal word of God, and a few others, and the beliefs you don’t agree with but really have little evidence to refute.
It should be about trying to discern what is true and what is theory. Sometimes " I don’t really know" is what is true and we have to go with that.

I also think people can (and have) imagine(d) flight without ever having heard the myth of Icarus. That story isn’t what planted the seed; it is the result of the seed having been planted via observation of the natural world.

Yes of course. Not my point really. Unless we had the sense of wonder and imagination to create myths like Icarus we probably wouldn’t have the sense of wonder and imagination to persevere in building a plane. Science has aided us to accomplish things but also been used for great destruction. That’s on us as people.
The same with religion. It’s been used to do great harm and great good. I think that sense of wonder and awe, and the quest for the transcendent other, the hope of unity and harmony in one human family that is represented and talked about in the religious setting also propels mankind forward.

When people talk of dumping all that superstitious nonsense and making the world a better place I have to question the validity of that sentiment. Without it, with it’s yin and yang, we would not be the same beings at all. How exactly would that be better?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Incensed
I agree with this entirely, but wish to point out that I believe adherence to Christianity is failure to overcome the emotional attachment one feels to the ideology of their parents and peers. People seem to believe that dismissing an idea someone taught you is to dismiss the person; such is not the case, and, I feel, that as more people come to understand this, we will see a trend to renounciations of faith.

Another comment on this. I tend to agree. I see things changing.

Bishop John Selby Spong has some interesting thoughts on the matter including
Why Christianity must change or die

Keep in mind that along with people who claimed an ideology taught by parents and peers there are also many people who discovered faith as a thinking adult. Just as believers become atheists, some atheists become believers. Young people leave the religion of their youth to embrace another as an adult, or spend time away from their religion but return when they find it holds something meaningful for them.

Belief systems evolve and change and thats as it should be.

[Kalhoun]

@cosmosdan

A huge difference indeed. One that I think atheists should notice as well. There’s a difference between beliefs you can refute with plenty of evidence such as Creationism, the Bible as the literal word of God, and a few others, and the beliefs you don’t agree with but really have little evidence to refute.

I have no evidence supporting the existence of god and I don’t believe he exists. Theists have no evidence supporting the existence of a god either, but they do believe he exists. I’m sure you see the obvious difference between the two statements. We’re talking about two entirely different approaches to the unknown. One approach opens the door for any and all possible answers, while the other has already filled in the blank with no evidence to back it up. This argument comes up often around here but I fail to see why anyone would think it pertinent to the debate.

It should be about trying to discern what is true and what is theory. Sometimes " I don’t really know" is what is true and we have to go with that.

I agree.

Yes of course. Not my point really. Unless we had the sense of wonder and imagination to create myths like Icarus we probably wouldn’t have the sense of wonder and imagination to persevere in building a plane. Science has aided us to accomplish things but also been used for great destruction. That’s on us as people.

I misunderstood. When you said “IMHO I don’t think we could have had the Wright brothers without the myth of Icarus” it sounded like you were directly crediting mythology with sparking the creative flame in the fathers of flight.

The same with religion. It’s been used to do great harm and great good. I think that sense of wonder and awe, and the quest for the transcendent other, the hope of unity and harmony in one human family that is represented and talked about in the religious setting also propels mankind forward.

Substitute “sometimes” and I can agree.

When people talk of dumping all that superstitious nonsense and making the world a better place I have to question the validity of that sentiment. Without it, with it’s yin and yang, we would not be the same beings at all. How exactly would that be better?

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that change isn’t good? That we wouldn’t have diversity independent of the god question? I see no *added benefit * in god belief. Good things have surely been done in the name of god, but doesn’t mean those good things couldn’t have been achieved without faith. There is no magic in it that makes people more compassionate, creative, smarter, generous, civic-minded or responsible. People are people. They do good things to each other. They do bad things to each other. That’s the kind of animal we are.

I was watching a thing on The Rapture yesterday. One woman rattled on about how she has to rattle on about christianity and the rapture because “she might be the only exposure to the bible a person might have.” :rolleyes: Maybe the question should be “how would the world be worse off in the absence of superstition?”

[Anne_Neville]

@Incensed

I understand what you are trying to say; The plight of African Americans in this country until the 1860’s (and1960’s) is one example of what happens when those in power are able to convince their followers that a group is sub-human. The extermination of Jews during Holocaust is another. However, I think we have reached a point of scientific advancement were we can reasonably establish a precedent for ‘being human’(ie an individual’s DNA more closely resembles that of the ‘average’ human than that of the ‘average’ chimp), and all those who meet this criterion should be ‘done’ “as you would have them do unto you.”

But there are some problems with this.

For one thing, it assumes that human DNA is the thing that makes us different from other animals. From a philosophical standpoint, I’d prefer something about consciousness or sentience. As a practical matter, just how far do you let someone’s DNA stray from “average human” and still let them be human?

But the real point is that any criterion is arbitrary, and there isn’t really a scientific basis for drawing that line. “What makes humans deserving of rights that animals don’t have?” is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

[cosmosdan]

@Kalhoun

I have no evidence supporting the existence of god and I don’t believe he exists. Theists have no evidence supporting the existence of a god either, but they do believe he exists. I’m sure you see the obvious difference between the two statements. We’re talking about two entirely different approaches to the unknown. One approach opens the door for any and all possible answers, while the other has already filled in the blank with no evidence to back it up. This argument comes up often around here but I fail to see why anyone would think it pertinent to the debate.

You are limiting the evidence to objective. You may feel that objective is the only “real” evidence and I won’t argue that point. Some people , such as myself, have powerful experiences that remain unexplained. Currently, objective evidence can’t explain them. I think it’s reasonable for you and I to draw different conclusions about the cause of those unexplained experiences.
I realize my conclusions are influenced by culture, personal preference and other stuff. Aren’t everybody’s?

FTR I think religious beliefs should be held provisionally and there’s a lot in organized religion that hinders that process. Still, as much as they resist it, the learning process goes on even within those who stubbornly cling to beliefs out of tradition or emotional attachment. All this to say that filling in the blank doesn’t mean we’re not open to other possible answers. If you’d rather not fill in the blank, that’s your prerogative. It works for you. If I fill in the blank with something that works for me I don’t think that’s wrong, or worse or better than your position.

I agree.

How bout that

Substitute “sometimes” and I can agree.

Acknowledged. I agree “sometimes” is more accurate.
I would note that I don’t think the fear that moves people to cling to their beliefs is a part of that hope I spoke of. I don’t think the greed or desire for control that permeates organized religion is part of it either. Neither do I think these negative aspects outweigh the positive.

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that change isn’t good? That we wouldn’t have diversity independent of the god question? I see no *added benefit * in god belief. Good things have surely been done in the name of god, but doesn’t mean those good things couldn’t have been achieved without faith. There is no magic in it that makes people more compassionate, creative, smarter, generous, civic-minded or responsible. People are people. They do good things to each other. They do bad things to each other. That’s the kind of animal we are.

If we want to grow we must be willing to change. Change is inevitable even when we resist it. I’m saying the same inner quality of wonder and awe, the search for answers about ourselves our world and the true nature of our reality, that spawns religion and myth, also moves science. In order to eliminate religion and god belief we would need to change the very part of us that moves mankind forward. Only MHO of course.
Without the sense of imagination , and the need to know and explain, that spawned Icarus {for example} no Wright brothers.

I was watching a thing on The Rapture yesterday. One woman rattled on about how she has to rattle on about christianity and the rapture because “she might be the only exposure to the bible a person might have.” :rolleyes: Maybe the question should be “how would the world be worse off in the absence of superstition?”

I think my point is that in order to eliminate superstition we would have to eliminate something essential about human nature. That sense of wonder has it’s up side and it’s down side but you can’t eliminate one without eliminating the other.

[Denicio]

One Big guy, creator of it all… this all powerful all knowing dude creates man, creates all manner of animals in pairs, then OOPS realizes he forgot ole Adam…so he gave him a wife. All knowing would have KNOWN Adam was all alone.

SO, god looks away as he is creating green aliens, reading the news paper or what ever it was that kept him from keeping an eye on the kids, and they ate the fruit they shouldn’t have. Drat, don’t you hate that? Look away and they mess up. SO, he punishes all of mankind for this Apple Pie Mistake…Gee thanks!

So we are now FLAWED in the eyes of god and this jealous god that instructs us NOT to Covet ourselves (Hypocrisy started with the G-man himself) requests mass animal sacrifice to clean up our new mistakes…how barbaric!

So Fast-Forward a few years and the gentiles are included with the New Testament, who wants to be left out? The author makes this miracle boy a hippy…who knew? Teaching common sense, Dr Phil crap. Be nice, play nice, do good etc. Civilized Common Sense, nothing more.

The bible painstakingly goes thru the genealogy, yet omits stuff like Masturbation, and the NT does not invest a single word into Homosexuality…which has been a Sound Bite since time began.

So in this NT god has a boy, for the sole purpose to stop the slaughter of Yaks and Lambs…and to save our souls. SO he drums up the most publicized Post Birth Abortion ever told, by allowing his son to die for nothing at all.

Let me get this strait, GOD, who can do anything he darn well pleases, could ONLY come up with Murder of his son as a way to get us closer to him? (what is it with god and the murdering of sons? Abraham anyone?)
Been much easier to just wave his magic wand (the wand that created all that we know) and just bring us on home. Why the elaborate and barbaric games?

I am a recovering Christian, having grown up in a Baptist School and Baptist Church. It’s shunned upon to question anything. Just supposed to shut up and believe, because we say so.

The bible is full of duality.

The BIGGEST duality that engulfs the bible is this…WHO WROTE IT ? Not god, but man inspired by god…wait…did I say man…the man that is FLAWED? So a Flawed Man wrote Gods book? Why on earth would he leave the most important document of his existence at the hands of the Fallen Man? and not just ONE man, but many men. Holy cow!
We are eternally punished for Eve’s lie, yet we get to write his book.
He can part a sea, burn a bush, create a giraffe, rob a snake of legs yet he cant seem to get the pen to the paper himself and just poof it into existence.

Harry Potter is way more believable than this horse hockey.

Denicio

[tomndebb]

It took two weeks to compose that?