Mind if I Try to Start a Religious Debate?

[47948201]

I've always wondered how I'd do in one of these, but I typically stay away from arguments of the sort because they tend to degrade pretty fast. So, groundrules:

1. No flaming/insulting the people of either side. This is in the CoC anyway, but if you do this, I'll just say you've lost.

...And...That's it! Feel free to hate on the ideology, but make sure you're justifying yourself, please!

So, I've said pretty much nothing about the topic so far, sooo here goes!

I don't know a lot of specifics on the anti-Christianity argument, so could we start from square zero? ^-^; What science is there to "disprove" Christianity? If there isn't any, why can't we just call it what it is: a religion based on faith? Then we can get on with our lives :V

[Constable Reggie]

Betting money that this thread's eventually going to turn into this again.

[47948201]

Continuing from FFTF...

(I really shouldn't have said anything. *sigh*)

Probably what I should be saying now XD

Butttt hey we'll see where this goes. That thread seems to've stopped abruptly anyway. If things end up terrible I guess there's no rule against stopping.

EDIT: So it's worth mentioning that I'm not trying to prove Christianity--I don't believe it was meant to be proven! I'm just saying I don't see how people can disprove it.

Edited May 7, 2013 by 47948201

[Guy Starwind]

TC I wish more people thought like you. However, sadly people are stupid on both sides and won't respect others opinions and beliefs.

[Green Poet]

So it's worth mentioning that I'm not trying to prove Christianity--I don't believe it was meant to be proven! I'm just saying I don't see how people can disprove it.

Alright, I'll try to disprove some of this from the viewpoint of a (hopefully amiable) agnostic.

I'm not going to claim that the fundamental claim of Christianity is viably disprovable (that Christ exists and was the foremost creator) but I will assert that the Bible should not be taken literally, for some of the events detailed cannot be replicated on a corporeal plane. Instead, it should be interpreted metaphysically and followed as a discipline to guide one's behavior instead of as doctrine.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, though I don't mind arguing over a different theater completely; hopefully this stays clean.

[Dwalin2010]

Alright, I'll try to disprove some of this from the viewpoint of a (hopefully amiable) agnostic.

I'm not going to claim that the fundamental claim of Christianity is viably disprovable (that Christ exists and was the foremost creator) but I will assert that the Bible should not be taken literally, for some of the events detailed cannot be replicated on a corporeal plane. Instead, it should be interpreted metaphysically and followed as a discipline to guide one's behavior instead of as doctrine.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, though I don't mind arguing over a different theater completely; hopefully this stays clean.

Even though I am a Christian, I agree completely with this post. In my opinion, if more people (both Christians and atheists) always remembered the Bible is full of allegories, there would be less fights about religion.

[Guy Starwind]

Alright, I'll try to disprove some of this from the viewpoint of a (hopefully amiable) agnostic.

I'm not going to claim that the fundamental claim of Christianity is viably disprovable (that Christ exists and was the foremost creator) but I will assert that the Bible should not be taken literally, for some of the events detailed cannot be replicated on a corporeal plane. Instead, it should be interpreted metaphysically and followed as a discipline to guide one's behavior instead of as doctrine.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, though I don't mind arguing over a different theater completely; hopefully this stays clean.

So not trying to start an argument but which events can't be replicated?

[Green Poet]

So not trying to start an argument but which events can't be replicated?

The parting of the Red Sea, for example.

If I remember correctly, and I do not intentionally misquote, God instructed Moses (?) to raise a staff skyward upon reaching the strait, so as to signal Him to part it and allow Moses and his followers to pass. Logistically, this shouldn't have been possible, and is still not replicable today without some sort of massive backstage hydraulic pump or something.

[Shin]

You can't fully prove it or disprove it, that's pretty much how it goes. Of course, when it comes to the age of the world, I'm much more inclined to believe that the Bible probably has it wrong, but there's a lot that can't be proven wrong.

I have no trouble with religion itself, it's actually kinda nice for the most part.

[Silver Lightning]

Alright, I'll try to disprove some of this from the viewpoint of a (hopefully amiable) agnostic.

I'm not going to claim that the fundamental claim of Christianity is viably disprovable (that Christ exists and was the foremost creator) but I will assert that the Bible should not be taken literally, for some of the events detailed cannot be replicated on a corporeal plane. Instead, it should be interpreted metaphysically and followed as a discipline to guide one's behavior instead of as doctrine.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, though I don't mind arguing over a different theater completely; hopefully this stays clean.

I completely agree, and this is coming from a born-and-raised Catholic. I never understood why people insist on taking everything they read literally; from my childhood, I have always seen the Bible as something to guide good behavior but not to believe literally as the only way of interpreting it. I take the lessons I learn from God's teachings to heart the way I understand and practice them, not someone else's theory on what they are or what it means to them (though I would certainly respect their views). I guess I'm one of the more "liberal" Christians in that aspect...

[Guy Starwind]

The parting of the Red Sea, for example.

If I remember correctly, and I do not intentionally misquote, God instructed Moses (?) to raise a staff skyward upon reaching the strait, so as to signal Him to part it and allow Moses and his followers to pass. Logistically, this shouldn't have been possible, and is still not replicable today without some sort of massive backstage hydraulic pump or something.

Couldn't you just say that was the power of God working through Moses?

[Rehab]

I've always wondered how I'd do in one of these, but I typically stay away from arguments of the sort because they tend to degrade pretty fast. So, groundrules:

1. No flaming/insulting the people of either side. This is in the CoC anyway, but if you do this, I'll just say you've lost.

...And...That's it! Feel free to hate on the ideology, but make sure you're justifying yourself, please!

So, I've said pretty much nothing about the topic so far, sooo here goes!

I don't know a lot of specifics on the anti-Christianity argument, so could we start from square zero? ^-^; What science is there to "disprove" Christianity? If there isn't any, why can't we just call it what it is: a religion based on faith? Then we can get on with our lives :V

If you mean to ask directly what in science contradicts the letter of the bible, we could be here for a while, but for starters: current estimates put the universe's age at a bit less than 14 billion years old (as opposed to between 6 and 10 thousand). Geologists have found no trace of a super-flood that wiped out all land-dwelling life, and archeologists have found evidence that some ancient civilizations were extant and surviving at the point in time where the flood was said to have occurred. Evolution, et cetera.

If you take the Bible to be a book of metaphors and allegories, though, you're mostly just left with the assertion that there are a bunch of things out there, including an omnipotent creator and some realms of existence, that can't be detected or (fully) comprehended by mortals, and that each person will be rewarded or punished upon their admissions to said realms based on the actions (and sometimes thoughts?) that they took while living back in the world we can observe. People have made some logical and ethical objections to some of the ideas included in that bundle of assertions, to be sure, but basically science is just concerned with (dis)proving things that are physically testable, so there's no inherent conflict between that and the act of one drawing meaning/inspiration from something that they don't claim to be able to physically prove, no.

So there may not need be conflict between science and, say, Christianity, and it'd be lovely if we could all do that last bolded part, but too many people try to influence how we govern ourselves based on what they gain from religion, most certainly including that one in particular, again, based on taking something which either cannot be tested, or can be in empirical fact disproven, as an unquestionable truth. This isn't necessarily something people only do with religion as their reason and their weapon of choice, to be sure, but through history it has been a common enough and strong enough element of the whole enterprise that it's not entirely possible to ignore, without at some point dealing with said element.

Edit (which doesn't include futzing with grammar etc): I think I most like how I heard it in Ian Barbour's (a physics phD and B.Div in, iirc, theology) book, When Science Meets Religion: science is (at its best) used as a tool to understand how we exist, and religion is (at its best) used to understand why.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Rehab

[Dwalin2010]

I remember there also are debates about the big differences between the Old and New Testament. Some people say God is cruel as there are many pointless cruelties in the Old Testament. But, in my opinion, some of the rules were simply made by the people's leaders, not on God's direct instructions. For example, I could never see God seriously instructing to sacrifice animals and saying about the smoke from their burning bodies "this is the smell that pleases the Lord". God isn't Satan. Also, before the Old Testament was made, the situation was even worse, there was only the law of the strongest. People back then probably simply wouldn't have accepted more merciful and altruistic laws.

[47948201]

If you mean to ask directly what in science contradicts the letter of the bible, we could be here for a while, but for starters: current estimates put the universe's age at a bit less than 14 billion years old (as opposed to between 6 and 10 thousand). Geologists have found no trace of a super-flood that wiped out all land-dwelling life, and archeologists have found evidence that some ancient civilizations were extant and surviving at the point in time where the flood was said to have occurred. Evolution, et cetera.

Where does the Bible say that the world is 6-10 thousand years old? Those genealogies could be listing family groups instead of people, if that's what you mean. And does it say explicitly "man was made as man and he never evolved"? One popular theory is that the Genesis "days" are each millions and millions of years, because what is a "day" before we've got a rock flying around a ball of gas?

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to mention the flood. Allegorical interpretations aside, a lot of people think that the world-destroying flood was just to destroy what those people knew as the world, which was obviously a lot smaller than the whole globe.

But yeah I agree it's silly to try and force things together that don't necessarily mix.

Edited May 7, 2013 by 47948201

[Redwall]

Couldn't you just say that was the power of God working through Moses?

OK, let's look at my crude drawing of the Red Sea, as seen by someone about to walk through it:

-- --

||| |||

Pascal's law states that the pressure in the Red Sea as a function of depth would have been P(z) = P_atm + rho*g*z. Pressure is a scalar; the pressure at any given depth will result in a transmitted force in all directions. In a natural situation, the pressure would have simply resulted in the Red Sea "unparting." There would have needed to be some force that exactly counterbalanced the force generated by the water pressure as a function of depth; what provides that force?

[Green Poet]

Couldn't you just say that was the power of God working through Moses?

Indeed you could, but that jeopardizes its validity. Basically, if there is a means, the truth behind it is questionable if that method can't be replicated.

In other words, because "God" is usually not a very corporeally active or observable force, it's logical to question whether or not it's true that He simply channelled his power through Moses. It'd be the same as me claiming to be able to part seas because I'm backed by the magic of the MacGuffin - the argument relies on one already having faith, but we're trying to debate that faith here.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Green Poet

[Guy Starwind]

OK, let's look at my crude drawing of the Red Sea, as seen by someone about to walk through it:

-- --

||| |||

Pascal's law states that the pressure in the Red Sea as a function of depth would have been P(z) = P_atm + rho*g*z. Pressure is a scalar; the pressure at any given depth will result in a transmitted force in all directions. In a natural situation, the pressure would have simply resulted in the Red Sea "unparting." There would have needed to be some force that exactly counterbalanced the force generated by the water pressure as a function of depth; what provides that force?

But if the Lord is omnipotent as he claims would he need a counterbalanced force? If God created all such laws He certainly has the right to suspend them if He so desires.

I'm not saying one or the other. I just like to expand my knowledge.

In response to Green Poet: I'm just trying to get both sides of the field. I get what you're saying, I'm just trying to add in all possibilties.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Guy Starwind

[Redwall]

it's certainly possible, but that's not a statement that's falsifiable in principle, and hence it is outside the realm of science.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Redwall

[Green Poet]

In response to Green Poet: I'm just trying to get both sides of the field. I get what you're saying, I'm just trying to add in all possibilties.

Of course; I respect that.

Hope I'm not coming off as too self-righteous.

[Guy Starwind]

Of course; I respect that.

Hope I'm not coming off as too self-righteous.

Not at all. I enjoy the imput.

[Klokinator]

I use this as the basis for my lack of religious beliefs.

God apparently had no problem doing miracles, then stopped when humanity suddenly became able to record its history more reliably.

[deleted35362]

Pwnage Kirby still exists? :awesomeface:

I wanna ask Christians or whatever a problem that's been bugging me for a long time (My Parents raised me as a Jehovah's Witness, but I'm 100% atheist now)

They say Jesus "died for our sins"

Am I missing something here? As far as I know, the story of Jesus(the archangel) is basically God sending him down to Earth to go on magical adventures; causing miracles and going about his preaching journey. Eventually, some guys that were pissed at him tied him to a wooden stick (which may or may not be a cross) and tortured him till he died. Apparently Jesus was experiencing some difficulty with his miracle driver at the time. This is how he allegedly "died for our sins", and he just goes back to heaven after that.

How dies this make sense? Why is his death even considered potent? It seems like it didn't even need to happen. Wouldn't it have been (hypothetically) better if he continued his journey instead of just dying there?

How does his death "forgive the sins of humanity"? Is there some kind of "unholy sin" quota that, if filled, provokes god to just nuke everything? Did Jesus letting himself die just reset the counter? If so, why does his death do that? It's such a random action, and it isn't even a bad thing for Jesus. He CAME from heaven, and dying just made him go back and stop actually working.

Somebody say something.

[S_Cero]

I don't like Christianity because I just don't agree with it's morals. I also don't like religion in general because it brainwashes kids because from a young age they are taught if they did bad things or left the religion the would burn for all eternity. Also Christianity just seems to follow Jesus just because he is God.

[Constable Reggie]

What morals do you have issue with?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[47948201]

Pwnage Kirby still exists? :awesomeface:

I wanna ask Christians or whatever a problem that's been bugging me for a long time (My Parents raised me as a Jehovah's Witness, but I'm 100% atheist now)

They say Jesus "died for our sins"

Am I missing something here? As far as I know, the story of Jesus(the archangel) is basically God sending him down to Earth to go on magical adventures; causing miracles and going about his preaching journey. Eventually, some guys that were pissed at him tied him to a wooden stick (which may or may not be a cross) and tortured him till he died. Apparently Jesus was experiencing some difficulty with his miracle driver at the time. This is how he allegedly "died for our sins", and he just goes back to heaven after that.

How dies this make sense? Why is his death even considered potent? It seems like it didn't even need to happen. Wouldn't it have been (hypothetically) better if he continued his journey instead of just dying there?

How does his death "forgive the sins of humanity"? Is there some kind of "unholy sin" quota that, if filled, provokes god to just nuke everything? Did Jesus letting himself die just reset the counter? If so, why does his death do that? It's such a random action, and it isn't even a bad thing for Jesus. He CAME from heaven, and dying just made him go back and stop actually working.

Somebody say something.

Still exists? I've done things of varying noteworthiness every year recently, I think XD

I should be more surprised you exist, been a while.

The general idea there is that previous Jewish law required that people make sacrifices. Something pure (sheep were popular) would die in the stead of someone who wasn't pure, but recognized their flaws (I think that was mostly symbolic, but I guess it's fortunate God seems to agree with the whole "it's the thought that counts" deal, eh?)

Jesus was basically Sheep+.