Is Christianity Illogical?

[Erinome]

Science, it works, biatch!

Faith in science works, hence faith works! Right back at 'ya!

Before scientific method/exploration/discovery began on this planet, there was not even a need for the word "faith". It didn't even exist before 1200 AD, and then it just meant "trust".

About which context of the word are you speaking? It doesn't matter, because the word faith doesn't belong in science at all. Science, above all, doubts.

If you knew anything at all about how science works, you'd know that the point of science is to disprove things.

[Annik]

Well, you'd be wrong. Linguistics primarily studies speech, not written language. However, because we can't actively study the speech of people who are long dead, we use linguistic methods to analyze written language to give us insights about the speech of those who wrote the documents. Linguistics works hand-in-hand with archaeology and anthropology to determine past life-ways and language use.

It's really kind of funny how completely wrong you are sometimes.

For someone who claims to be a linguist, you need to read the dictionary.

1. Dictionaries only report usage.
2. He is a linguist. He is actually a scientist on language. He know what his own field does.
3. Your willful ignorance is almost blinding.

[spockrates]

The first is weakest; as without it all others fall down. The reason it is weakest is because we are constantly uncovering new evidence that disproves the claim.

Well, it's an ancient claim, that's certain. It's one established by Moses, who tells us God said:

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18)

The task for us is simple: Prove any prediction an author of the Old Testament made false, and you've proven him a fraud. Should we take Moses up on his challenge?

[FallentoReason]

If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why a logical person should still not become, or remain Christian.

1) Christianity is dependent on an earthly Jesus
2) To date that still can't be proven
3) Therefore it's illogical to believe modern-day Christian doctrine... From ANY of the 30 000+ denominations.

Alternatively, you could explore the possibility that your interpretation is wrong and you don't know the true message of the Gospels or even their intentions.

---

The task for us is simple: Prove any prediction an author of the Old Testament made false, and you've proven him a fraud. Should we take Moses up on his challenge?

I would absolutely love to. Question though, what will happen after I show you trivial events in Jesus' life are almost word for word from the OT? Let me clarify here: trivial events NOT prophecy.

[spockrates]

Faith in science works, hence faith works! Right back at 'ya!

Before scientific method/exploration/discovery began on this planet, there was not even a need for the word "faith". It didn't even exist before 1200 AD, and then it just meant "trust".

About which context of the word are you speaking? It doesn't matter, because the word faith doesn't belong in science at all. Science, above all, doubts.

If you knew anything at all about how science works, you'd know that the point of science is to disprove things.

I suppose, then that the scientific method has something in common with the Socratic method. Yet, don't both the scientist and the philosopher trust (or put faith in) their methods? If faith is a kind of trust, then are not science and philosophy kinds of faith? The difference between the scientist and the philosopher and the Christian is not in any lack of trust, but in the objects in which they trust, I think. What do you think?

---

If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why a logical person should still not become, or remain Christian.

1) Christianity is dependent on an earthly Jesus
2) To date that still can't be proven
3) Therefore it's illogical to believe modern-day Christian doctrine... From ANY of the 30 000+ denominations.

Alternatively, you could explore the possibility that your interpretation is wrong and you don't know the true message of the Gospels or even their intentions.

---

The task for us is simple: Prove any prediction an author of the Old Testament made false, and you've proven him a fraud. Should we take Moses up on his challenge?

I would absolutely love to. Question though, what will happen after I show you trivial events in Jesus' life are almost word for word from the OT? Let me clarify here: trivial events NOT prophecy.

I suppose such would suggest at least two possibilities:

1. The events of Jesus life were deliberately fabricated
2. The events of Jesus life were remarkably predicted

How would we determine which of the two are true?

[Gambit]

Science doesn't put faith in it's methods until they are proven to work. Even then there is always room for reevaluation, improvements or complete reworking of previous models. This has been said time and time again, but religious faith affords truth no such luxury. Instead it manipulates the facts to fit with the original assertions. It goes back to my previous answer to you - if the first assertion/premise/preposition fails, then everything else falls down. Science doesn't work in the same way.

[KnockEmOuttt]

If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why a logical person should still not become, or remain Christian.

Christianity is illogical because it assumes certain aspects of history, science, and existence to be untrue while at the same time it presents dogmatic principles as infallible fact, even when these principles do not stand up to testing.

When talking about the question of evidence, you must realize why we ask you, the Christian, to provide it. We believe in the absence of god, and logically it makes more sense to prove presence rather than absence. It's a basic principle of science, it's how we test things.

If you're looking for examples, there are a plethora of discrepancies within the bible. I suggest you look here if you'd like to see them all highlighted. When you consider that the only "real" evidence to support Christian theology is what's in the book you start to realize that it doesn't make so much sense, especially when you consider the very weak arguments presented in the face of evidence to the contrary (which doesn't need to be provided really, but it does exist.)

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

What is it that you think you are doing here?

[jonb]

God said:

27 and three quarters: And verily Big ears spoke unto nody 'dust thou have the clap?'
'Oh great one I have lain with the elves, and it be swollen, and of great proportion' The blue hatted one replied.
'Well get yourself unto the sore bones' he spaketh
28.7840$$1 And he did taketh himself unto the clinic, and was cured. Verily Big ears had spoken the truth unto him. The virgins rejoiced to see such fun and  the dish ran away with the spoon.

[spockrates]

If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why a logical person should still not become, or remain Christian.

1) Christianity is dependent on an earthly Jesus
2) To date that still can't be proven
3) Therefore it's illogical to believe modern-day Christian doctrine... From ANY of the 30 000+ denominations.

Alternatively, you could explore the possibility that your interpretation is wrong and you don't know the true message of the Gospels or even their intentions.

Reguarding the first alternative, I'd like to ask how you, or I believe anything about the life and death of any historical figure. Julius Caesar, for example--is there anything historians tell us about him that it is reasonable to believe? Or is all ancient history unbelievable?

---

Science doesn't put faith in it's methods until they are proven to work. Even then there is always room for reevaluation, improvements or complete reworking of previous models. This has been said time and time again, but religious faith affords truth no such luxury. Instead it manipulates the facts to fit with the original assertions. It goes back to my previous answer to you - if the first assertion/premise/preposition fails, then everything else falls down. Science doesn't work in the same way.

The same goes for Socratic philosophers, and many Christians.



Faith of any kind should never be blind.