Why try to disprove Christianity?

[Queeb Salaron]

Ok, I know this is going to strike a cord with some of you (coughWongcough), but I've got a bone to pick. It seems like a whole lot of people on this board like to pick on Christians. Now, I'm not talking about picking on the Fundies, becuase in most cases they deserve it. And I'm not talking about picking on the ignorant assholes who have no concept of Christianity at all and yet still swear by it. Rather, I am referring to average Joe Christian who, for all intents and puropses, gets his religion ripped to shreds by people like some of the members of SDnet. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm one of those who tries to disprove Christianity by any and all means necessary. My question, therefore, does not disclude myself, but rather seeks insight from everyone else.

Why do we try to disprove Christianity? Isn't it just as well that we let people have faith in something that cannot be proven? Isn't the nature of faith such that the reason for faith cannot be reasoned?

[Starscream]

Most Christians, or fundies of any order, will admitt that there is no way to prove their religion. They will also tell you that they don't care because they accept it by faith. Only the real nut cases and those you back into a corner will actually try to prove their religious beliefs through the scientific method. The only people I would argue with would be the ones that would try to force their beliefs on me, which fortunately hasn't happened yet.



Edit: Me type bad.

[Rye]

Maybe they should believe in babylon 5 or something better, with reachable standards, ephasis on reprocussions(sp) of their actions, being nice to people and it's core text not contradicting itself. coughcoughvpkcough

But you know what i mean. Deism is fine as long as it's not taken to the extremes. Same with anything.

[Sir Sirius]

Why do we try to disprove Christianity?

To save the world from the clutches of silly superstitions, to promote rationalism and just to alleviate the boredom.

[Wicked Pilot]

Why do we try to disprove Christianity? Isn't it just as well that we let people have faith in something that cannot be proven? Isn't the nature of faith such that the reason for faith cannot be reasoned?

Christianity is dangerous. Believers of it tend to do stupid and evil things.

[LadyTevar]

I still consider myself Christian, because I do believe what I was taught in church, although I never really got any teacher or preacher to answer my question about why God would let all those people who had never heard of Christ die, and why good people in other religions would die, even if they were being 'godly' by their religions.

Then I read CS Lewis' Narnia series, and a quote from "The Last Battle" comforted me: Aslan states 'All good done in the name of Tash (the 'demonic' god) is mine, and all evil done in my name is Tash's.'

This partly led to my personal belief that all God/s are facets of one Supreme Being that we humans can only get glimpses of. Those glimpses, taken through human perspectives, can be conflicting and confusing, thus the differences. It's like the old story of the blind man and the elephant.

Still, I do believe in Christ's death and resurrection, while having enough outside knowledge to admit there's other (some older) religions with that theme. Surprisingly, that comforts me too.

Now, I don't go to church regularly, because none of them 'feel' right. It's kinda like finding a doctor you like and trust.
Most of my praying is done when I'm in the car, or by myself, just a simple 'thank you' or 'please help this person'.
I've also picked up a co-worker's habit when something unexpectedly good happens of saying "Thank you God, thank you Jesus". Makes Nitram laugh at me, but it's comforting.

Now, here's where I get into trouble on this board, and it's related to the "Is Moral Code a Religion" thread Wong started. IMO, athesism is a belief system, especially when there are followers of this idealogy who are as violently antagonistic as any rabid fundie when defending their beliefs.

[InnerBrat]

Then I read CS Lewis' Narnia series, and a quote from "The Last Battle" comforted me: Aslan states 'All good done in the name of Tash (the 'demonic' god) is mine, and all evil done in my name is Tash's.'

That was my favourite book as a kid, and that is one of my favourite theological ideas ever.

[Ted C]

Why do we try to disprove Christianity? Isn't it just as well that we let people have faith in something that cannot be proven? Isn't the nature of faith such that the reason for faith cannot be reasoned?

Disproving Christianity isn't necessary. Disproving the incorrect and sometimes even dangerous ideas spread by some of the more deranged elements of the religion IS necessary.

Too many Christians don't understand what that book of theirs actually says; they need to see and understand the dark side of Christianity, and they need to understand that it's not fountain of morality that many of them think it to be.

[GonK]

Now, I don't go to church regularly, because none of them 'feel' right. It's kinda like finding a doctor you like and trust.

I can agree with that sentiment. It's the main reason that I stopped going to church.

As to disproving chritianity I don't see any need to do so. Someone's personal belief's are just that their personal beliefs. What i do have a problem with are fundamentalists who try to force their beliefs onto you be they christian islamic or atheists. Thankfully in the UK you dont tend to run into too many fundies and religion is much more of a personal thing rather than something you have to go around reminding everyone of.

Probably the best way I have of summing it up is that I have no problem with Christianity but I do have a problem with some of the organised churchs.

[HemlockGrey]

You can't prove Christianity to begin with; it defeats the entire purpose.

[Queeb Salaron]

Christianity is dangerous. Believers of it tend to do stupid and evil things.

For the last time, Christianity is not dangerous. PEOPLE are dangerous. And PEOPLE tend to do stupid and evil things. It just so happens that the majority of PEOPLE on this earth are Christian.

Fucking A.

[Superman]

I can give you the scientific answer to this: We don't have to disprove Christianity; they have to PROVE it. The burdon of proof lies on the person making the claim. Until they can prove it, especially without their silly appeal to emotions, they need to shut the fuck up and stop spreading it like the cancer it is to other places and other people.

Christianity CANNOT be disproven anyway. Just like Leprechauns and Fairies cannot be disproven. They have to prove THEM.

[Starscream]

Christianity is dangerous. Believers of it tend to do stupid and evil things.

For the last time, Christianity is not dangerous. PEOPLE are dangerous. And PEOPLE tend to do stupid and evil things. It just so happens that the majority of PEOPLE on this earth are Christian.

Fucking A.

Actually the majority of people on earth are muslim or hindi.

[RedImperator]

I always thought it was kind of boorish to tear into Joe Christian's beliefs unprovoked, especially since there are a number of smug recent...converts, I suppose...to athiesm who seem to like to do it only to prove their own superiority. Now, if Joe Christian WANTS a debate like that, fine, or when he starts mouthing off about Christianity's moral superiority, that's another matter.

[NapoleonGH]

The reason why I will go on the offencive against religion is that i view religion in general but particularily christianity as one of the prime forces standing between humanity and civilization. It obstructs reason, logic, and is based in worshiping a god that is shown to be an immoral prick. regardless of how christian you are, you still believe in the basic message of the bible, and that basic message I see as a negative force on man, and if i can help demonstrate the problems with the belief structure and the concept of faith rather than reason and logic, i hope to be able to help in the civilization of man.

[Rye]

I always thought it was kind of boorish to tear into Joe Christian's beliefs unprovoked, especially since there are a number of smug recent...converts, I suppose...to athiesm who seem to like to do it only to prove their own superiority. Now, if Joe Christian WANTS a debate like that, fine, or when he starts mouthing off about Christianity's moral superiority, that's another matter.

That's one of the best written views of mine that someone else has voiced.

..or something...here's hoping you got the sentiment.

[Enforcer Talen]

Then I read CS Lewis' Narnia series, and a quote from "The Last Battle" comforted me: Aslan states 'All good done in the name of Tash (the 'demonic' god) is mine, and all evil done in my name is Tash's.'

That was my favourite book as a kid, and that is one of my favourite theological ideas ever.

good series, even if I disagree with the reasoning behind it.

[Wicked Pilot]

For the last time, Christianity is not dangerous. PEOPLE are dangerous. And PEOPLE tend to do stupid and evil things. It just so happens that the majority of PEOPLE on this earth are Christian.

People who are Christians tend to be more dangerous than people who are Buddist. There just might be a connection here. Moreover, the fact that Christianity has the largest number of followers in not through chance, it is because Christians went out and violently forced their beliefs onto other peoples. Those who would not convert were slaughtered. Now if you want to say that ultimately people who do evil and stupid things are ultimately responsible for their actions, then I say damn straight. But if you let fundamentalism go unchecked, you can be sure the world will grow stupider and a lot more dangerous.

[Darth Wong]

The point of disproving Christianity is not to browbeat people who believe in it, although they may take it that way. The point of disproving Christianity is to remind people of that which Christians are SUPPOSED to already know: that Christianity is a faith, not a fact.

If you can disprove something, this means that you can use logical analysis of objective data to show that it is not possible. In other words, it is impossible, hence one must believe in miracles in order to think it happened anyway.

How does this contradict standard Christian thinking? It doesn't. NOT AT ALL. But there are a surprising number of Christians who seem reluctant to admit that their religion IS, in fact, a pure faith-based system. This is dangerous for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that a subjective motive for an action may be considered "objective" in their minds, hence a perfectly reasonable justification to override objective criteria.

In other words, you might have wackos thinking that it's OK to do something otherwise harmful because God wants them to. You can always tell a Christian who's a hatemonger and a lunatic because he doesn't admit that his religion is impossible; he believes it is FACT, just as objective as the grass on your lawn or the air in the atmosphere. And when you have this mentality, quoting Leviticus is only natural.

[EvilGrey]

*snip*

You cannot disprove the existence of God, thereby giving Christians and other theists little cause for concern.

[Darth Servo]

You cannot disprove the existence of God, thereby giving Christians and other theists little cause for concern.

Burden of proof fallacy

[EvilGrey]

You cannot disprove the existence of God, thereby giving Christians and other theists little cause for concern.

Burden of proof fallacy

Theists are not obligated to justify their belief in God to you.

[Darth Wong]

Theists are not obligated to justify their belief in God to you.

They are if they intend to claim that it's a fact rather than a faith. And when you use belief in God to justify laws (such as anti-gay discrimination) and actions in THIS world, you are treating it as a fact.

[Darth Servo]

Theists are not obligated to justify their belief in God to you.

If I'm going to be sentenced to hell for all eternity simply for not following your particular flavor of Christianity they sure do.

[Darth Wong]

*snip*

You cannot disprove the existence of God, thereby giving Christians and other theists little cause for concern.

Red-herring fallacy. I was talking about disproving Christianity, not disproving the Vague God.

The Vague God is an unnecessary hypothesis, but Christianity itself requires numerous impossibilities, such as bringing the dead back to life etc. Christianity can be disproven.