Christianity: A Flawed System?

[HazyRigby]

Geez, guys, I have to go to work sometimes....give me a break!

Posted by wildernesse:

...what makes your opinion more valid than mine on the question of what is the basic premise of Christianity?

Well, it's my opinion, and as I have no other to base my thoughts and feelings on, I'll run with it.

Just because someone believes something without proof does not make the object of that belief untrue, however. I don't understand the proofs of many scientific theories--physics *is* more of a belief for me, but that doesn't make the object of my belief (physics) untrue.

Ah, but you see--someone could take you into a lab and prove to you the basic tenets of physics. Although physics may not be *easy* to understand, it's *possible* to understand it. Compare that to Christians, who claim that the mind and the methods of God are unknowable--"God works in mysterious ways," right? You can't prove the assertions of Christianity, but you're right--you can't disprove them, either. And since the person making the claim has the burden of proof--it is up to Christians to provide some evidence for their beliefs. And so far, there is none.

For the purpose of discussion, it is preferable that the terms be defined and agreed upon. Otherwise you may end up arguing at cross-purposes.

You have defined truth as something that accords with factual evidence, while other people could define it as behavior/activity/thoughts that meets divine standards for humans.

I don't think I could bother arguing with someone who defined truth that way. Truth isn't a metaphorical concept. It doesn't need to be defined.

I just think that Jesus's words are far more important than Paul's, especially as I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Paul is just a person like anyone else. Mere quantity of written thought does not make someone correct. The entire Bible sums up for me as: Love God and your neighbor with all that you are. People may disagree with me, but that's the point of Christianity.

Well, that's pretty honorable of you. From what I've seen of your other posts, you seem to be a nice person. But there's no consensus in Christianity. Some people believe that love is the core belief. Some people believe it's obedience. Some people believe it's hatred of homosexuals, for goodness' sake. The point is this: how can you believe in an illogical concept that claims to have perfect truth but can't even be interpreted by its own believers?

Science can't prove that God exists or not. Stop wielding it like a club against faith. They are not mutually exclusive. Science tells us about this natural world, it cannot and does not purport to tell us about non-natural things. It can explain natural phenomena that were previously thought to be supernatural, but in the end there is not a way for it to tell us that there isn't a supernatural.

Ummm...there's no evidence for it?

Look, I'm actually with you on this. I'd LOVE for there to be some sort of a happy afterlife, but it's a fantasy invented by people who don't want to die. People claim natural evidence of the supernatural all of the time--"my son was healed by God." "The statues in my house weep oil." "Look at these stigmata!" But here's the rub--people claiming these sorts of things NEVER want their phenomena examined by real scientists. If there is such a thing as the supernatural, how come it only manifests itself around people who have little or no scientific education? Or people who have something to gain from the manifestations, for that matter? Take, for example, the case of that little girl who's in a coma (is her name Audrey DeSanctis? I don't know--it's something like that). Anyway, her mother promotes her as a genuine "saint," and there are weeping statues all over their house. People come from all over the world to touch this comatose girl. But will the mother submit to scientific inquiry concerning the statues? Of course not. If she were proven a fraud, her comatose cash cow would disappear. If the supernatural is real--if John Edward is really talking to spooks--how come he won't allow outside cameras into his studio?

If the supernatural is real, why do people try so hard to disguise their methods of "contacting" it?

If someone's belief makes them happy and comfortable, what's it to you?

Because a self-deceiving population is an uninformed one. Our science education is absolutely atrocious in this country, and that certainly harms me. People don't care about funding for scientific research. People don't care about funding NASA. And I think those sorts of things would change if people finally abandoned this "my belief makes me happy--who cares if it's true?" attitude.

And just to be nit-picky here, you've not shown that lying is bad, and bad in all situations.

Sure. Let's bring up a child to be an emotionally stunted half-wit who believes that whatever makes him feel good MUST be the truth. Let's bring up someone unprepared to face reality.

THAT couldn't possibly be bad, now could it?


Well, wildernesse, we've written novels in this thread now. Sheesh.

 

[HazyRigby]

I would also like to ask you Christians this: you say you "know" that Jesus and Christianity are real. By what means do you know this? We have five senses. Do you see Jesus? Have you touched him, tasted him, smelled him (eeew), or heard his voice? Or is it that you guys have some new sense that we secular folks don't know about? If so, describe it.

If you have done none of those things, then how do you know that Jesus is real? I'll tell you. You "feel" it. And feelings are about as reliable as...well, they're not reliable. The folks in Iraq think Allah is every bit as real as you think Jesus is. The people in India think Vishnu is every bit as real as you think Jesus is. David Koresh "felt" that he was the second coming embodied.

You all have absolutely no evidence for something, yet you believe it anyway. If that's not the definition of "illogical," I don't know what is.

 

[HazyRigby]

Yesterday at 07:45 PM Outspoken said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=652116#post652116)
"Of course it is. Any philosophy which advocates faith as the highest of man's impulses is flawed by definition."

that pretty much strikes down every faith, belief, moral code, and even science itself.

Your point?

But you can't say that about science. What scientist do you know who takes his science on faith?

 

[Cardinal_James]

 

But you can't say that about science. What scientist do you know who takes his science on faith?

What scientist takes his science on faith? Well, all of the pioneers of the different disciplines did at one time. When scientists have a theory, they have yet to prove that theory, but they have a strong believe that this theory could one day be proven as fact. Isn't that faith? The belief that the untangiable and unproveable is true because you believe it.

 

[Outspoken]

"By what means do you know this? We have five senses."

Then by these means you don't exsist either. The thing that makes up "you" ie your personality, can't be validated through 5 sences. Your appeal for emperical evidience is a good scientific approach, but science is not the right tool for the job, just like it can't prove you exsist either.

"But you can't say that about science. "

Sure you can. Science is based on 3 "givens" ie things taken in faith that are unprovable. Without those 3 science can't exsist and fails as a tool.

 

[Cardinal_James]

Alright, i think we are getting of track. Let's get back to what this forum is about, is Christianity a flawed system? I would argue a few points;

1.What system is perfect? (if anyone says Christianity is, they are sniffing glue)

2.The basis of Chrisitian doctrine, the bible full of inconsistantcies. How can you base your arguement on a piece of literature that is flawed?

Can we get back on topic? Enough of this science verses faith junk

 

[HazyRigby]

Today at 11:55 AM Cardinal_James said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=653300#post653300)

What scientist takes his science on faith? Well, all of the pioneers of the different disciplines did at one time. When scientists have a theory, they have yet to prove that theory, but they have a strong believe that this theory could one day be proven as fact. Isn't that faith? The belief that the untangiable and unproveable is true because you believe it.

Flawed logic. No scientist ever postuled anything based on his beliefs; if he did, he'd be laughed out of science. Scientists observe phenomena, postulate theories, and come to conclusions. What part of that process is based on faith? If a theory turns out to be flawed, a scientist discards it and moves on. Compare that to Christianity, which by your own admission is "full of holes." What reputable scientist would accept something that hasn't been proven in numerous tests? What scientist believes in science on "faith"? And if something were intangible and unprovable, how would one go about proving a theory about it anyway?

Outspoken said:

Then by these means you don't exsist either. The thing that makes up "you" ie your personality, can't be validated through 5 sences. Your appeal for emperical evidience is a good scientific approach, but science is not the right tool for the job, just like it can't prove you exsist either.

Ridiculous. Of course my personality can be validated through someone else's senses. If I make someone a birthday card, they can see it and feel it, can't they? And it would be a product of my consciousness, wouldn't it? Science can certainly prove I exist. I have mass. I take up space. I convert fuel to energy. I can affect my environment--e.g., when I pick up a plate and drop it, it can be observed that an outside force is acting on the plate. I can communicate with fellow human beings and share my conscious thought with them. People who say things like "science can't prove you exist" are only showing the depth of their scientific knowledge.

Sure you can. Science is based on 3 "givens" ie things taken in faith that are unprovable. Without those 3 science can't exsist and fails as a tool.

Perhaps you should describe to everyone which three things science takes on faith and without which science would self-destruct. Considering that people do experiments every day trying to disprove every theory under the sun (in the hopes that fame and fortune and Nobel Prizes will follow), I'd be interested to hear your analysis.

 

[HazyRigby]

Also, I note that no one answered my question: if you aren't experiencing God through one of your senses, then how do you know he exists?


In response to Cardinal_James:

1. What do you mean by "perfect"? And who gets to define that? (Apologies to wildernesse.)

2. You shouldn't, but many do. The mind can do much twistin' and turnin' when one's belief system is challenged.

 

[wildernesse]

Dang it, Hazy Rigby--I haven't had time to formulate my answer yet to your first reply--get back to you tomorrow.

"Perfect" is when something is completely fit for its purpose. More than this sound bite tomorrow.

--tibac

 

[Cardinal_James]

"What reputable scientist would accept something that hasn't been proven in numerous tests?"

Evolution hasn't been proven, yet it has been accepted. So if it hasn't been proven, yet it has been accepted . . .what would you call that?

In response to your questions;

1. What is perfect and who gets to define that? If we can't agree on definitions, you need to find another outlet for your hostilities towards Chrisitians, so i ask you, what is an acceptable definition of perfect. Also, everyone has faith in something, even of it is a lack of faith, such as you.

2. I have to agree with you on this one, i'm glad that we have at least some common ground to stand on.

 

 

[wildernesse]

What parts of evolution hasn't been proven? Please go to the science forum to talk about this--evolution has plenty of evidence to back it up.

Hazy--

Regards burden of proof: Suffice it to say, that I have enough "evidence" for my own believe (naturally). I doubt it would convince anyone else, which is fine. If I were trying to convince and convert, I would need very strong "proof"--but I think that's impossible. I don't think that anyone can convert/convince anyone else--I think it's something you do/discover for yourself.

Regards believing illogical belief: Well obviously, I believe the true, logical branch of Christianity and everyone else is wrong. haha. I think that other people's views of Christianity don't really inform my belief at all. I consider what other people think about Christianity, but some of that may not apply to me.

Regards supernatural claims: If people don't want to be investigated, then maybe the miracle isn't real. I've no qualms about saying some people are fakes--or give a really good impression of being fake. However, I don't really see the point--if it is a supernatural event, what would scientific inquiry do? By definition, science couldn't disprove the event was supernatural. It could prove that it was natural, if the event was simply a natural event. Take that, dead horse! Whack, whack!

I disagree that people's belief necessarily interferes with their ability to accept science. I don't think that my belief causes me to disregard what science tells me about this natural world. My belief also does not stop me from being informed about any other subject I might pursue.

Why do I believe? Because my family taught me certain principles and told me certain things, and my experience in life backs that up. I'm sure that's the same for people's beliefs the world over. How do I know that I'm right? Technically, I don't--however, I think that what I believe is right for me.

--tibac

 

[Cardinal_James]

Regarding Christianity as a flawed system, i think that a more appropriote argument instead of why can't you prove Christian beliefs is can you disprove them.

In a way, yes. If you prove that the bible is flawed, then the whole system has to be flawed as well, and the house of cards crashes. 

The bible is obviously flawed, full of mistakes and inconsistancies, so then Chrisitianity must be as well. 

 

[HazyRigby]

Wildernesse,

So...what you're saying is, let's agree to disagree?

Believe me, I understand Christianity. I was once a devout Christian. And thank you for being so honest about your beliefs and thoughts.

Today at 12:43 AM Cardinal_James said this in Post #30 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=654444#post654444)Evolution hasn't been proven, yet it has been accepted. So if it hasn't been proven, yet it has been accepted . . .what would you call that?

::bows to wildernesse for answering the question already::

If we can't agree on definitions, you need to find another outlet for your hostilities towards Chrisitians, so i ask you, what is an acceptable definition of perfect.

I don't have hostilities toward Christians; a lot of people I love are Christians, including my parents and my brother. I do, however, have hostility toward Christianity. I think that it is not only flawed, but very harmful.

An acceptable definition of perfect? My husband. But I'm not positive that that definition would be universal, soooo.....

You know, I don't get you, Cardinal. One moment, you're saying that Christianity is "full of holes" and that the Bible is "obviously flawed," and the next moment, you're defending Christianity as if you were passionately devoted. I can't decide if you're just an indecisive believer....or something else.

 

[HazyRigby]

I can't believe I missed this one!

Today at 11:48 AM Cardinal_James said this in Post #32

Regarding Christianity as a flawed system, i think that a more appropriote argument instead of why can't you prove Christian beliefs is can you disprove them.

James, it's commonly accepted that the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you say Christianity is real, then it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to me--the nonbeliever--to disprove it.

If this weren't an accepted debating rule, then you would get all sorts of nonsense--e.g., if I'm debating with someone on the merits of capital punishment, and I use as my reason for being against the death penalty that Martians have told me that it's wrong, where does that leave my opponent? You can't refute an argument that is based on fantasy, especially if the speaker believes in it wholeheartedly. No one could ever DISprove that Martians speak to me on a daily basis. No one could ever DISprove that the little clowns in my garage check my oil every day. No one could ever DISprove that unicorns exist. Am I making sense?

So, the burden's on you. Show me one--ONE--piece of compelling evidence that Christianity is more than a cult based on a fairy tale.

 

[Cardinal_James]

Hey Hazy, did you even bother to read the rest of my post?

"Regarding Christianity as a flawed system, i think that a more appropriote argument instead of why can't you prove Christian beliefs is can you disprove them.

In a way, yes. If you prove that the bible is flawed, then the whole system has to be flawed as well, and the house of cards crashes. 

The bible is obviously flawed, full of mistakes and inconsistancies, so then Chrisitianity must be as well."

O.k., now that you actually read the whole thing, i'd like to point something out . . .IM ON YOUR SIDE! Your intent is true, but your vision is as cloudy as the smog that hangs around LA.

So, moving on, is there anyone who thinks that the quoted statement isn't accurtate?  

 

[HazyRigby]

....still not getting Cardinal_James, but okay....

 

[wildernesse]

Today at 08:02 PM HazyRigby said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=655294#post655294)

Wildernesse,

So...what you're saying is, let's agree to disagree?

Believe me, I understand Christianity. I was once a devout Christian. And thank you for being so honest about your beliefs and thoughts.

Yep, I'm happy with agreeing to disagree. I'm one of those people who loves to argue (shh, don't tell--apparently this is very bad). Apparently, my English skills are failing me though--my last post needs some cleaning up.

I'm sure that you understand the belief that you once had very well. I don't know if that would translate into knowing Christianity across the board though. heehee. I never quit, just ignore me.

--tibac

 

[HazyRigby]

(shakes head grimly at Wildernesse)

You're silly.

Now, if you could help me understand Cardinal_James, the world would be a better place.