Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Statements on Christianity that need to be addressed

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» Statements on Christianity that need to be addressed

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

1. "There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any miracles ever actually occurring."

2. "The Jesus story just is an accumulation of myths of legendary people, all rolled into one uber-nice guy."

3. "Science and faith are incompatible ways of thinking. Separate realms that should be kept separate."

4. "The history of science is the story of one religious superstition after another being eradicated by reason and logic."

5. "The Bible is a translation of a translation of tales cobbled together by Constantine in 300AD."

6. "St. Paul invented Christianity by making a nice rabbi named Jesus into a god."

7. "Evolution disproves God."

8. "In their arrogant superiority, Christians think everybody else is going to burn in hell for all eternity."

9. "The Bible is riddled with contradictions and therefore cannot be the perfect word of God."

10. "More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause in the history of the world."

@Alan McDougall,

I'd say mostly true, except seven since a theory cannot disprove anything...
And two is wrong as well...Jesus was not nice... What he asked of people was impossible, and what he taught was difficult to accept, so people find it far easier to call themselves Christians than to follow Christ...

@Fido,

Fido;138711 wrote:

I'd say mostly true, except seven since a theory cannot disprove anything...
And two is wrong as well...Jesus was not nice... What he asked of people was impossible, and what he taught was difficult to accept, so people find it far easier to call themselves Christians than to follow Christ...

Mahatma Gandhi said he would have been a Christian if it were not for the appalling example of those who said they were followers of him namely; Christians

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;138698 wrote:

7. "Evolution disproves God."

I don't think I have ever seen this anywhere or even said. If it has been said it was not by anyone intelligent because there is a logical possibility that if such a being existed, it could have relied on evolution for life to develop. So how would it disprove a god?

The only argument you can make any where near this statement is to say that evolution discredits original sin. It can't disprove the existence of a god or gods, but it can poke holes in the original sin story.

How exactly does it "poke holes" in the creation story? Well if all life on earth has evolved from simpler life forms then by all means, humans didn't just magically appear along with the other animals. It has been a process of ongoing changes and adaptations for millions of years. So humans didn't come from one or two people but instead a biological process of species to species changes. Therefore there could have been no original humans to do anything wrong.

So if you ever hear someone say that evolution disproves the existence of god, they are a moron. Even though I don't believe in any gods or god making a statement like that requires further investigation.

@Krumple,

Krumple;138864 wrote:

I don't think I have ever seen this anywhere or even said. If it has been said it was not by anyone intelligent because there is a logical possibility that if such a being existed, it could have relied on evolution for life to develop. So how would it disprove a god?

The only argument you can make any where near this statement is to say that evolution discredits original sin. It can't disprove the existence of a god or gods, but it can poke holes in the original sin story.

How exactly does it "poke holes" in the creation story? Well if all life on earth has evolved from simpler life forms then by all means, humans didn't just magically appear along with the other animals. It has been a process of ongoing changes and adaptations for millions of years. So humans didn't come from one or two people but instead a biological process of species to species changes. Therefore there could have been no original humans to do anything wrong.

So if you ever hear someone say that evolution disproves the existence of god, they are a moron. Even though I don't believe in any gods or god making a statement like that requires further investigation.

I agree I simply posted factors revolving around Christianity that come up some many times in debate. No one can prove the existence in god or the reverse. Remember there are millions of people who believe in the bible quite literally

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;138886 wrote:

I agree I simply posted factors revolving around Christianity that come up some many times in debate. No one can prove the existence in god or the reverse. Remember there are millions of people who believe in the bible quite literally

Well there are people on both sides of the debate that lack debating skills or neglect their sources of reasoning behind their comments. If someone is an atheist it doesn't mean they have rationally become an athiest. They might have irrational reasons even.

I think it is funny that evolution makes it into the theology / scientific debate at all. In fact I think for the most part this so called debate of evolution is made up by the theology side. As I see it, there is no debate about evolution, however; does the theory have issues? Of course it does, it is not full a proof theory. But the reason it has not been abandoned by the scientific community is not because it clashes with theology, but because it is the best current model we have to explain how life might have originated on our planet. The theory is backed up with lots of evidence and we are collecting more and understanding more every day. Sure there will be moments when something gets reworked or changed but that is always the case with scientific discoveries.

I can't remember who said it but it sums up the whole problem we have as humans and our beliefs.

"Quantum physics is like the philosophy of worms, it constantly reminds us of how wrong we are about a lot of things."

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;138886 wrote:

I agree I simply posted factors revolving around Christianity that come up some many times in debate. No one can prove the existence in god or the reverse. Remember there are millions of people who believe in the bible quite literally

If there is at least one confirmed truth about God then we have proof that God exists is true.
If the definition/description of God is contradictory we then have proof that this God does not exist.

Contradictions cannot be believed. The literal interpretation of the bible has many contradictions, therefore 'there are millions of people who believe in the bible quite literally' is very doubtful. (Delusion abounds)

It is clearly not rational (absurd) to believe that contradictions are true.

@Owen phil,

Owen;138898 wrote:

If there is at least one confirmed truth about God then we have proof that God exists is true.
If the definition/description of God is contradictory we then have proof that this God does not exist.

Contradictions cannot be believed. The literal interpretation of the bible has many contradictions, therefore 'there are millions of people who believe in the bible quite literally' is very doubtful. (Delusion abounds)

It is clearly not rational (absurd) to believe that contradictions are true.

What makes you thing I think contradiction are true??

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;138698 wrote:

3. "Science and faith are incompatible ways of thinking. Separate realms that should be kept separate."

4. "The history of science is the story of one religious superstition after another being eradicated by reason and logic."

5. "The Bible is a translation of a translation of tales cobbled together by Constantine in 300AD."

Do people not put a lot of faith in science, maybe for good reason? How does faith have to exist separately from reason? Maybe blind faith does, but not all faith is blind.

Prior to Constantine, theologians such as Clement used reason to justify the Christian scripture. He went so far to say that in order to be a true Christian, you had to study philosophy. So again, I don't see why faith and reason must exist separately just because many Christians today don't understand the history behind Christianity. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote volumes on the reason behind faith and the ability to place faith in your reason.

Even for much of the tradition, such as with St. Tomas and Anselm, the stories in the Bible must be looked at as a allegories describing the greatest being possible. Not just a being among other beings, but being itself. For them, God is not a being with properties, but all being in which properties manifest.

Once the stories become literal facts that must be believed in their entirety as fundamentalism posits, then faith becomes something dangerous and is in fact blind, but not all Christians are fundamentalists; although it may seem to be the case when watching Fox News.

The title of this thread should be, "Statements on Fundamental Christianity that need to be addressed."

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;139088 wrote:

What makes you thing I think contradiction are true??

:bigsmile: I think it is better to live without re-fering to "God/Allah" all the time... Or Yaweh. From religions we can learn what rules we need. If there would have been cars mill. ago, there would have been commandments on traffic.

I studied Eso0-terie (semester) and started reading on the subject. I want to go back to UVA.xxx I think Humanisme with Eastern relax will be better for US. Zen/yoga p.e. & fit-ness>
Smile

@Alan McDougall,

It seems that the more science discovers about the world around us, the further we stray from the legitimacy of Christianity. The fact that our surroundings are made of specific elements leave me speechless as to explain why we would need such elements to survive. It is much more logical to believe that we are made of elements released in the evolution of a supernova than to believe in a creation theory. Those familiar with Ockam's Razor know that when presented with 2 theories, the simplist and most logical explanation is more often than not correct.

@pshingle,

pshingle;139429 wrote:

It seems that the more science discovers about the world around us, the further we stray from the legitimacy of Christianity. The fact that our surroundings are made of specific elements leave me speechless as to explain why we would need such elements to survive. It is much more logical to believe that we are made of elements released in the evolution of a supernova than to believe in a creation theory. Those familiar with Ockam's Razor know that when presented with 2 theories, the simplist and most logical explanation is more often than not correct.

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that a divine creator beyond our comprehension created the universe

@pshingle,

pshingle;139429 wrote:

It seems that the more science discovers about the world around us, the further we stray from the legitimacy of Christianity. The fact that our surroundings are made of specific elements leave me speechless as to explain why we would need such elements to survive. It is much more logical to believe that we are made of elements released in the evolution of a supernova than to believe in a creation theory. Those familiar with Ockam's Razor know that when presented with 2 theories, the simplist and most logical explanation is more often than not correct.

Do you feel it is illogical to believe those two beliefs are compatible?

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that they are both right, and are both necessary to understand different aspects of the same process; the physical aspect and the spiritual aspect.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;139487 wrote:

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that a divine creator beyond our comprehension created the universe

That is not a simple explanation because you don't have a reference point for any such being.

It would be like hearing a noise from a closet but you can't see into the closet because the door is in your way. There could be billions of reasons behind the explanation of the sound coming from the closet. Would you theorize that it was god creating the sound in the closet or something else? So you open the door to reveal what caused the sound and find nothing in there except a box laying on the ground. You could assume it must have fallen off the shelf above and it caused the noise. But what caused it to fall off the shelf? Would you assume once again that god caused the box to fall off the shelf, or the fact that some how your cat snuck into the closet and was trying to find a way out. While it tried to get to the shelf it knocked the box off causing the sound. As you opened the door the cat rushed out without you seeing it. Yet you would probably speculate that god caused the sound.

Your god reasoning is the same reasoning they used thousands of years ago to explain why rain happens, or why the earth shakes. There are thousands of things they didn't understand so they just said god did it. The funny thing is, you are still using it today even though it is completely and utterly outdated. Saying god is a simple example is actually the irrational explanation.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;139487 wrote:

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that a divine creator beyond our comprehension created the universe

Unless this is a euphemism for "the origin of the universe is unknowable", your opinion has an infinitely small probability of being correct.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;139487 wrote:

The simplest explanation in my opinion is that a divine creator beyond our comprehension created the universe

Explanations which cannot be explained have little value or simplicity.

@Alan McDougall,

actually, he didn't say simple he said simplest.
are we to believe that there is no power at the begining, or that there is no begining at all?
i don't think we can compare abstract problems to a cat in a closet it's just not that simple
Until we find a better answer, whats wrong with calling the underlying power, that we all know must exist, God.
why must everyone get thier back up and start defining that word anytime someone mentions it?
It seems the whole idea of god means he,it,defys defining by our tiny finite human mind.

@wayne,

wayne;139516 wrote:

Until we find a better answer, whats wrong with calling the underlying power, that we all know must exist, God.

It's an abuse of language and dishonest.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;139517 wrote:

It's an abuse of language and dishonest.

there ya go with that definition thing again

@wayne,

wayne;139516 wrote:

i don't think we can compare abstract problems to a cat in a closet it's just not that simple

The cat is not the aspect of the problem. It is to point out that there can be other more rational explanations for the same experience. Science has proven this to be the case on many occasions. Just look at what people use to believe about earthquakes, and what we now understand them. Would you still say gods or spirits are causing them?

wayne;139516 wrote:

Until we find a better answer, whats wrong with calling the underlying power, that we all know must exist, God.

You think there is an underlying power, however; I do not see any such thing that you are referring to. You insist that it must be something you can't comprehend so you feel it necessary to label it god. I do not feel nor view existence how you are describing, so I don't have your outlook. I don't see human consciousness as anything divinely special. For me it is just a merging of two data sets. Just like when you put some extreme heat to an object with carbon, it will combust and the chain reaction will continue until the fuel supply runs out. I don't see consciousness any different than that simple process, although it isn't exactly identical as fire it is still a chemical reaction occurring at the combining of two data sets.

It doesn't cheapen the beauty of it for me to understand it in the way that I do. I understand that the sun causes water falls to happen, it doesn't make a water fall any less beautiful to experience. I just don't place any additional unsubstantial baggage onto this experience calling it divine. I don't need to.

wayne;139516 wrote:

why must everyone get thier back up and start defining that word anytime someone mentions it?

A lack of definition makes the word meaningless. Or a meaningless word, what is the point in having it, if it is meaningless? Why not call it Isgababa then?

wayne;139516 wrote:

It seems the whole idea of god means he,it,defys defining by our tiny finite human mind.

You call the human mind tiny or you make an assumption as if we can't comprehend it. How about a more rational explanation instead? That you are just inventing god and that is why you have trouble defining it? Why is it you must be taught everything else, but the one thing you can not be taught of you keep insisting must exist. You don't think that is absurd at all? For me it is absurd because nothing in your reality do you ever treat that way.

Just like a person who is about to cross the street with a friend who says, "Hey look out for that car!" You look around and see no cars anywhere. So you step off the curb and your friend cries out again, "Watch out for that car, you idiot!" You look around again and see no cars moving. So you are curious and ask your friend, "What are you talking about, I don't see any cars." Your friend replies that it is a car that you can't comprehend but it is there, your mind is just not capable of understanding it." So you snicker and ask your friend if he is going to follow you across the street. He refuses because he believes the invisible car is going to run him over. There is your rational mind for you.

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» Statements on Christianity that need to be addressed

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Statements on Christianity that need to be addressed

Quick Links

My Account

able2know