All the problems with Christianity

[Ben Davis]

1. Christianity is not true, by any useful definition of the word 'true'

2. Christianity has more contradictory variation in its denominations than any other religion, past or present

3. Christianity permits, sometimes mandates, some of the most hideous crimes that can ever be committed

That'll do for starters.

---

I've read a lot of the Bible (not its entirety, I'm ashamed to say) but I've not come across one of Jesus's commandments that is truly evil.

You forget about the concept of vicarious redemption: utterly immoral and is an enabler to evil acts.

[Zazzy]

I think my biggest problem with Christianity is that it all sounds so silly. I can't take any of it seriously. The promises, the threats, the skydaddy watching and judging, the weird stories- none of it is any more reasonable than the Greek myths.

Plus, no two Christians ever seem to be able to agree on anything about their own religion; it's like they all accept a few core tenets and make up the rest. You guys can't agree on your own dogma, so it's not very convincing.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Christianity, and a few other religions actually, definitely does give people the idea that they're superior to the rest. God bless America, right? For some reason, god is always on the side of the christians, how can that not make you feel superior? Slave owners used the bible to justify what they were doing, abolitionists used it to justify what they were doing, kkk also used god to justify their shit, so did those that burned witches. To think that it doesn't make anyone feel superior is absurd. If you don't feel superior, why bother sending missionaries out to convert others? Because you believe that you know what's best for them! And the amount of effort put into evangelizing proves my point that this is a rather widespread phenomenon.

[The Reality Salesman01]

...in one easy-to-find thread!
Hi all, I'm making a list of all the problems people have with Christianity. So please post the ones that are most problematic to you. They can be in the form of questions, insults, logical arguments, or whatever.
I'll try and answer them the best I can.

My problem with religions as a whole is that they use "faith" as an epistemology.

The definition of "faith" needs to be wrestled down and clarified upon every religious conversation.

It is a conversation ender in some cases, in others, it draws it out for no other reason than to understand what the person of "faith" actually means by the word.

If one is pressed to give reason for how they know God exists, and they say "faith", they are making a knowledge claim, an objective claim. The word "faith" does nothing to solidify an objective claim as true. In fact, we haven't even scratched the surface.

How do you know that your God exists?

How have you ruled out all other gods?

Why should I believe you instead of another incompatible God claim?

The word "faith" does nothing to answer any of these questions.

[Anomalocaris]

I am so fucking tired of another Christian lemming coming here affecting that he, of all lemmings in the world, is uniquely qualified to clarify to other species who have seen the pile of lemming carcass at the bottom why the particular lemming trail off the cliff's edge he is on is the one and only trail to salvation.


The progression is bemusement, boredom, contempt, loathing. He arrived well past the loathing stage.

[TheBeardedDude]

If observation and experimentation contradict the bible, which is more likely to be true and how do you demonstrate that?

[Tonus]

Well the bible defines faith as this

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

It would be interesting to discuss how the various denominations of Christianity --or even individual Christians-- understand this definition. When I was a believer, I understood it to mean that faith was based on evidence. After all, why develop a term like "blind faith" if faith itself was understood to mean blind acceptance?

I saw the definition in Hebrews 11:1 in this manner: A father calls his child from work and promises to buy him the toy that he has desperately wanted for weeks. The child has received an assurance of a thing hoped for. When he hears the familiar sound of the front door being opened, he has the conviction of a thing not seen. The child has faith in something based on his father's promise and his track record in delivering on them.

It's not ironclad, of course-- the father might not fulfill his promise. But it's based on reasonable assumptions. If his father had called and promised to bring home a live tyrannosaur, the child would have plenty of reason to doubt and would likely assume that his father was making a joke. He would not automatically have faith that his father would be bringing home an honest-to-goodness dinosaur.

I think theists do themselves a disservice if they use "faith" as a fallback position when reason or evidence fall short. People take things on faith all the time. Taking them on blind faith is another thing entirely.

[ronedee]

Well the bible defines faith as this

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

It would be interesting to discuss how the various denominations of Christianity --or even individual Christians-- understand this definition. When I was a believer, I understood it to mean that faith was based on evidence. After all, why develop a term like "blind faith" if faith itself was understood to mean blind acceptance?

I saw the definition in Hebrews 11:1 in this manner: A father calls his child from work and promises to buy him the toy that he has desperately wanted for weeks. The child has received an assurance of a thing hoped for. When he hears the familiar sound of the front door being opened, he has the conviction of a thing not seen. The child has faith in something based on his father's promise and his track record in delivering on them.

It's not ironclad, of course-- the father might not fulfill his promise. But it's based on reasonable assumptions. If his father had called and promised to bring home a live tyrannosaur, the child would have plenty of reason to doubt and would likely assume that his father was making a joke. He would not automatically have faith that his father would be bringing home an honest-to-goodness dinosaur.

I think theists do themselves a disservice if they use "faith" as a fallback position when reason or evidence fall short. People take things on faith all the time. Taking them on blind faith is another thing entirely.

Maybe you are looking at it backwards?

What if the "gift" has already been given to us?

Then what if the "faith" is [from the father]? Faith to do the right thing with his "gift".

What could a father possibly want his unempowered "child" to do for him? Hmmmmm...

Need him? Obey him? Respect him? Trust him? Love him?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Well the bible defines faith as this

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

That's a deepity, and it's an incoherent statement. When you ask someone how they know God exists, and they say "faith", they've just performed a bait and switch if the above defintion is what they mean.

Hope denotes a potential for something not being true.

Conviction denotes a really strong belief. Which one is it?

If there's an inherent likelihood that something is false, there's nothing one can claim to "know" that it is true. Therefore "faith" is something different entirely.

People "Hope" to win the lottery, but there's nothing reassuring that a hope can lend to somebody in order to form a belief around it.

A belief is a representation of reality. The reality is that it's very unlikely that you'd win the lottery. If a belief is formed that contradicts reality, that's a delusion.



Delusion:a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs Webster Reference


The only accurate definition for faith that I've heard is this one:

FAITH - pretending to know things one doesn't know.


With this definition it ALL makes sense what somebody means when they say they know from "faith".

Here's some examples from Peter Bohossian:

"I have faith in God"

TRANSLATION: "I pretend to know things I don't know about God"

"Why should people stop having faith if it helps them get through their day?"

TRANSLATION: "Why should people stop pretending to know things they don't know if it helps them get through their day?"

"Teach your children to have faith"

TRANSLATION: "Teach your children to pretend to know things they don't know."

"My faith is true for me"

TRANSLATION: "Pretending to know things I don't know is true for me"

"She's having a crisis of faith"

TRANSLATION: "She's having a crisis of pretending to know things she doesn't know."

(Alternatively: "She is struck by the fact that she's been pretending to know things that she doesn't know.)

[Tonus]

Maybe you are looking at it backwards?

Looking at it backwards (from my explanation above) would leave us with the view that faith is blind by definition. The child in my example would believe that his father was bringing home the toy even though there was no evidence to believe such, or even evidence to the contrary (such as the father's adamant insistence that he would not purchase it). In that example, his faith would seem misplaced.

If god revealed himself to a person in a direct manner, then the faith isn't blind. That person may have trouble convincing others that his personal revelation is genuine; mental institutions no doubt have hosted their share of Napoleons over the ages. Others have had no trouble convincing people that they heard voices, but I suspect that few people believe that David Berkowitz was heeding a divine call when he acted on his personal revelation.

As for what god might want from us, I suppose that if he was to provide a personal revelation, it would be useful to include that information along with the bright lights and dancing angels.

---

What could a father possibly want his unempowered "child" to do for him? Hmmmmm...

Need him? Obey him? Respect him? Trust him? Love him?

I wanted to address this separately because it brought to mind a question that is probably more philosophical than anything else. That is to say, I don't know if there is a wrong or right answer, or what it might mean.

What can I "do for him"? What happens to god if I do not demonstrate a need for him? If I do not obey him? Or respect, trust, or love him? Is he harmed in any real sense? Or is it more the sense of sadness like we would feel if someone bumped the tower we were building from playing cards just before we added the finishing touches?