What do you object to about Christianity?

[nace186]

That doesn't sound easy to me. How could a scientist willfully ignore the scientific method when applying his mind to arguably the most important claim in the history of humanity?

What you say is true and logical. But that is assuming the scientist is a person who never been a hypocrite, which I have to say there is no such person.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Though I imagine 98% of engineers would consider them scientists, and I'd assume that at some point, most of them were pursuing some form of pure science during their education and/or career. I think the background is there somewhere, and the self-identification tends to remain.

I know we've diverged a bit... Anyway, I'm not sure how you can make the above claim. I'm an engineer and I never have and probably never will consider myself a scientist, despite having studied the sciences. Very few of my peers fit your description as well, anecdotally.

My point, I guess, was that both engineering and science have their fair share of pragmatists, although I would expect fewer scientists to admit to spiritual belief due to the process ingrained in them to test claims and hypotheses with evidence. Engineers do less theoretical experimentation and more application of known facts. Either way, I'm fairly certain the ratio of believers to non-believers in both of these fields is dwarfed by that of creative professions.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

They just don't.

Then I once again have to wonder how we could trust the findings of a scientist who can suspend his requisite skepticism so readily.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Francis Collins

See what Sam Harris has to say about Francis Collins.

 

[sandorski]

Then I once again have to wonder how we could trust the findings of a scientist who can suspend his requisite skepticism so readily.

The usual I suppose, but I hear what you're saying. I certainly wouldn't assume their conclusions on Scientific matters can be trusted at face value.

 

[PsiStar]

I think whenever there is religious or political arguing/debate I think of fallacious arguments aka errors of reasoning. When I was in college I thought that this was one of the more fascinating and enlightening classes I ever had ... and it was/is so down played. If I had to do life over again I would seriously consider psychology (versus electrical engineering) to study why people make the conscious choices that they make. And, I would have added a law degree ... may as well make some real money.:twisted:

And by the way, liars ... er ... lawyers are extremely logical. That old joke is the essence of why trial lawyers have to understand logic. In my opinion, but I am just an engineer.

With either religion or politics (and perhaps Wall Street) there is seldom logic or reasoning involved. They are mostly emotionally driven. So phrases as "intellectual dishonesty" are thrown out. I have usually sided with those throwing the "intellectual dishonesty" argument out as I have liked the sound of it. But lately I have started to wonder if the phrase itself is contradictory.

In short anyone who says, "I have faith ... in whatever", it would be completely illogical for anyone to use logic to pick at that faith. Although when the intent of that faith tries to control governance, such as Intelligent Design and primary education, then knowing and understanding fallacious arguments becomes important & ought to be more widely recognized ... a little digression.

The point of this post is for the sake of intellectual integrity. LOL What the hell is that? Right? Maybe it is just sticking to the topic OR maybe it is just not dissing an opposing opinion with a presumption of intellectual superiority... otherwise known as ego but not necessarily limited to that.

 

[ccblazer44]

I object to Christians that reject everything that wasn't in the bible. They blind themselves with ignorance.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I object to Christians that reject everything that wasn't in the bible. They blind themselves with ignorance.

You're one step away from a more inspired position: objecting to Christians who accept everything that is in the Bible.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

The point of this post is for the sake of intellectual integrity. LOL What the hell is that? Right? Maybe it is just sticking to the topic OR maybe it is just not dissing an opposing opinion with a presumption of intellectual superiority... otherwise known as ego but not necessarily limited to that.

Intellectual integrity includes rejecting claims that lack sufficient evidence. The problem is that the religious lack it. The negative atheist position is at worst intellectually neutral, so I don't think it's arrogant to assume some superiority on that point.

 

[Ns1]

This is my problem with religion

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/02/acid-attack-victim-i-could-hear-sizzling/

Storro, a 28-year-old Vancouver woman, was grateful she can still see. She said she was thankful for passionate doctors, supportive e-mails from strangers around the world, her family and God.

“For some reason, I had this feeling I needed to buy sunglasses,” Storro said inside a conference room at the Oregon Burn Center at Legacy Emanuel in Portland. “That’s Jesus, for sure.”

Thank god/jesus that you bought glasses and are still alive, how about thanking them for having some douchebag throw acid all over your face?

Thank god for anything lucky that happens, blame fate for anything bad that happens.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Christianity got a lot of things wrong. Hinduism is the only true path.

 

[PsiStar]

Intellectual integrity includes rejecting claims that lack sufficient evidence. The problem is that the religious lack it. The negative atheist position is at worst intellectually neutral, so I don't think it's arrogant to assume some superiority on that point.

Intellectual integrity rejects no claims & enjoins the discussion for intellectual curiosity.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Intellectual integrity rejects no claims & enjoins the discussion for intellectual curiosity.

That's not what integrity means.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's not what integrity means.

<--- clikky

 

[sandorski]

These 2 Vids(2 Parts of 1 discussion) pretty much sum up my thoughts on this:

Part 1
Part 2

 

[nixium]

Christianity got a lot of things wrong. Hinduism is the only true path.

Hinduism got a lot of things wrong. Buddhism is the only true path.

 

[IronWing]

Hinduism got a lot of things wrong. Buddhism is the only true path.

Buddha was a fattie. Rastafarians are on the right path.

 

[HumblePie]

These 2 Vids(2 Parts of 1 discussion) pretty much sum up my thoughts on this:

Part 1
Part 2

HAHAAHAHHA

That was funny.

"Your God's an Ass!"

 

[Nik]

My biggest gripe is the people. Here's an example of why.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

My biggest gripe is the people. Here's an example of why.

Adherents like Phineas are a symptom. The problem is institutionalized ignorance and credulity, which almost all religions demand, and extrication from which is considered punishable. In fairness, not all of his irksome behavior is directly attributable to Christianity, just as your aggression and rudeness in the face of disagreement are not characteristic of atheists.

 

[Jeff7]

My biggest gripe is the people. Here's an example of why.

I refuse to open that link. If you believed it, you could explain it to me yourself.


:awe:

 

[Zebo]

Total regulation of life and explanation of the universe is a good start. I have no use for 2000+ year old uneducated low IQ whacked out desert mystics who were probably hallucinating from heat. Jew, Christian or Muslim.

With that said I'm agnostic. Who knows maybe Allah was right about chopping heads or God about leveling cities.