Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Christianity, like many religions, is fantasy, like Alice in Wonderland Watch

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Yeah we have talked about it and you were wrong.Galileo was convicted of Heresy.Heresy is a theological thing.It means blaspheming against God.It wasn't to do with a lack of scientific evidence.Maybe that contributed but the main thing was Heresy.As in they thought his views went against God.

    There were also other scientists.Sure the church did contribute to education and literacy but it also banned disection.Because it thought the human body was sacred.That meant that we were stuck with galen's theories for centuries.It essentially taught the same wrong thingd for centuries instead of finding out new knowledge.Banning disection held back medical knowledge.Da vinci was one person who contributed to anatomy because he did disection which the church banned.The church was also very against Darwin.Sure at that time there was a lack of evidence but it was more that they didn't want to believe we were related to apes.
    Well, see, you just keep repeating I'm wrong but you haven't shown it. You haven't even argued for it. Galileo was convicted of heresy primarily pertaining to things not scientific. We went through this. Church bishops even went on record to say that if the main arguments which had not been refuted since Aristotle were overturned, his theory would be accepted. Talk about blinkered.

    Where do you get this history from? Now with dissection specifically, it is more complex than the straight forward debunked conflict thesis. Also, it is Catholicism and not Christianity in general that you are arguing against. Still, the idea that the one and only reason the church banned dissection is simply false. Some edicts pertaining to what clerics should do involving blood was misinterpreted to be talking about surgery and learning about the anatomy. Some papal bulls passed was talking about leaving corpses alone because the bones of soldiers in holy wars were being taken and sold. This had an affect on dissection. Some historians are even starting to question the whole idea;

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...unking-a-myth/

    "Every time I read something in The New York Times that Leonardo da Vinci had to hide the fact that he was doing dissection, and every time I listen to a tour guide in Italy tell these stories, it just kills me. I don’t know how to get rid of this myth.”

    She also thinks this myth started in the nineteenth century. Hmm, now where have we heard that before?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiet Benin)
    NO. Can you prove he's real? LOL
    I was joking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Translation: the bible is wrong because the fundamentalists are wrong.
    what do you mean? the garden of eden story was the reason jesus came to the world. that's the ****ing foundation of the entire religion.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Well that's blatantly inaccurate.



    When a belief is trying to make an objective statement about reality, one is going to be right and the other is going to be wrong.
    Yes but that's simply false, to me at least. Personally, I don't get how you can be 100 percent certain about many things, including your belief in religion. That's what I meant.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryHill)
    You mean "tolerate" then.

    Every supernatural claim made about Christianity, that can be judged on evidence, has been shown to be false. There has never been any evidence to support the existence of the supernatural in any form. The origins of Christianity through earlier precursor beliefs is well documented.
    So while this does not amount to "100% wrong", it certainly provides enough grounds for any rational thinker to reject it.

    The problem with this is that to some, a simple statement of logic or fact can sound "condescending" if it challenges their deeply-held beliefs. I agree that is is usually best to avoid being deliberately rude, but there is no requirement to avoid hurting people's feelings.
    Yes.

    I'm take an all or nothing stance and seeingas neither side has conclusive evidence, my stance is inpartial. Believing or not isn't simply about the evidence that you may have, it's about a feeling of purpose and community too. Others see rationality in this and would therefore choose not to reject it.

    I agree that it's difficult to know what offends people therefore if you do, a swift apology is all good. It's different if you do it unintentionally, as y
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what do you mean? the garden of eden story was the reason jesus came to the world. that's the ****ing foundation of the entire religion.
    Historically original sin is the fundamental concept. That's it. No fruit, no tree, no garden, no talking snake - heck even the knowledge of good and evil is considered a point about rational man rather than some historical journalistic account of original sin. But that is far from the whole story, after the reformation some have questioned the role of Adam in the account of salvation. The whole argument either way rests on Paul, but as Pauline scholars have pointed out, multiple times Paul also uses Adam as a symbol for Israel, which takes away the necessity of Adam in the account of original sin.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Nonsense. I respect your right to hold any belief but that doesn't extend to the belief itself. So you respect Naziism, fascism etc?
    I respect their right to hold their own beliefs: I don't respect the beliefs themselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Balabanator)
    Religion to me is like a drug. It can have positive effects and meanings but overengagement can have serious consequences.

    In terms of philosophy and self-awareness, I think it's fair to say that the only thing you can truly know is that you know nothing. As stoicism, the platform for self-improvement goes, your decisions and state of mind should be a result of physical experiences.

    Do you feel pleasure going to church? Does it contribute to a positive atmosphere? Do it.

    Constantly questioning a rigid concept like God will serve you nothing. Try to realise that throughout the ages individuals were not entirely fixated on their religion as a means to explain everything.
    I was a christian since birth. I know the bible from head to toe, i was on the Pentecostal denomination of Christianity and i prayed, did my best not to sin, accepting homosexuality was a sin etc etc, then i realise it is all fake when i visited a church that opened my eyes and realise Christianity is a fantasy.

    I have no pleasure of going to church but i seem to have an OCD symptom of craving one because i have been going to church since birth, i never ever really missed a service until i went uni two years ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry guys, i didn't expect this thread to turn out like this.

    I was so angry yesterday because of my father yelling at me and preaching about God for an hour (he is an Elder in the church) so i got so pissed off.

    Again, i respect everyone's beliefs and i'm not religious intolerant as i have made out to be in this thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    Historically original sin is the fundamental concept. That's it. No fruit, no tree, no garden, no talking snake - heck even the knowledge of good and evil is considered a point about rational man rather than some historical journalistic account of original sin. But that is far from the whole story, after the reformation some have questioned the role of Adam in the account of salvation. The whole argument either way rests on Paul, but as Pauline scholars have pointed out, multiple times Paul also uses Adam as a symbol for Israel, which takes away the necessity of Adam in the account of original sin.
    "original sin" is a fundamental concept...
    ...which came from genesis in particular
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryHill)
    Genesis 1. It is demonstrably false.
    Adam and Eve. Demonstrably false.
    Noah and the Flood. Demonstrably false.
    The virgin birth. Demonstrably false.
    The resurrection. Demonstrably false.
    While I don't think most of those events happened in a literal sense, hell most of the old testaments regarding the old jewish kingdoms being complete lies to exaggerated the jewish presence in the area in ancient times, many events in the bible are help up in the historical records. Usually via other ancient kingdoms such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians etc.

    However certain events such as Noah's flood, while not literally the same as described, more than less likely happened with many potential candidates of events, the black sea deluge being my favourite which occurred around 5,600BC.

    Virgin Births..... well with modern science we do them all the time and artificial insemination has been used for generations.

    Also resurrection.... yeah people do come back from death in hospitals on fairly regular occurrences and mistaken death or identity are possible candidates.

    Most modern followers of the Church of England, including many priests themselves don't even think most of those events happened as they are literally described in the bible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    First 3 if you read like a fundamentalist literalist, but that is the minority of Christians and certainly doesn't stand for Christianity as such. Second 2 can only be achieved by making question begging assumptions.
    Ah, the old "If you assume a different meaning to what the words actually say..." argument.

    The "question begging" must be done by the person asserting that physically impossible things actually happened. Dead people do not come back to life. Human conception is not possible without both egg and sperm. For them to be possible requires a "miracle", and it is such an event that is being examined, so it is question begging to assert that miracles are possible when examining the possibility of miracles.

    The latter is certainly not well documented, in fact the hypothesis are notoriously flimsy in accounting for how Jesus came to be seen as God, how Trinitarianism was considered within monotheism and many how many new interpretations were read out from the Old Testament.
    I didn't claim that every element of Christianity was present in earlier beliefs, just that it contains elements of earlier beliefs, but as far as Jesus as god, there are countless examples of gods presenting as human.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    However certain events such as Noah's flood, while not literally the same as described, more than less likely happened with many potential candidates of events, the black sea deluge being my favourite which occurred around 5,600BC.
    That is not the event that is described by, or required by, the Bible.

    Virgin Births..... well with modern science we do them all the time and artificial insemination has been used for generations.
    Again, not the same. Artificial insemination requires the use of human sperm. There was none involved in the virgin birth.

    Also resurrection.... yeah people do come back from death in hospitals on fairly regular occurrences and mistaken death or identity are possible candidates.
    No they don't. An NDE is not death.
    And if it was mistaken identity or not actually dead, then the Bibe is wrong!

    Most modern followers of the Church of England, including many priests themselves don't even think most of those events happened as they are literally described in the bible.
    Of course they don't. You'd have to be insane to believe it as literal truth. But if Christians don't believe that the Bible is true (especially regarding Jesus' birth & death), then what is the point? Most religious belief is no more than a cultural/social affectation that does not stand up to scrutiny.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryHill)
    Genesis 1. It is demonstrably false.
    Adam and Eve. Demonstrably false.
    Noah and the Flood. Demonstrably false.
    The virgin birth. Demonstrably false.
    The resurrection. Demonstrably false.
    It's a metaphor. How can you read about the "tree of knowledge" and not instantly file that away under poetic license? It's the most obvious thing in the world that Genesis and the Eden stuff is allegory. The Jesus bits are nonsense, I think the general rule is the newer your religion the crappier it is, but the super-early mythology is clearly metaphor.

    Also, the flood may be more plausible than we thought previously. We underestimated how long anatomically modern humans have been around by a long time until very recently, to the point where we can now be 100% sure that we lived through the Younger Dryas period of intense environmental catastrophe. It's perfectly realistic that there was a huge flood which just wiped huge swathes of the world population out of the picture (not an entire world flood, but again, poetic license).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    It's a metaphor. How can you read about the "tree of knowledge" and not instantly file that away under poetic license? It's the most obvious thing in the world that Genesis and the Eden stuff is allegory. The Jesus bits are nonsense, I think the general rule is the newer your religion the crappier it is, but the super-early mythology is clearly metaphor.
    So you agree with me.

    Also, the flood may be more plausible than we thought previously. We underestimated how long anatomically modern humans have been around by a long time until very recently, to the point where we can now be 100% sure that we lived through the Younger Dryas period of intense environmental catastrophe. It's perfectly realistic that there was a huge flood which just wiped huge swathes of the world population out of the picture (not an entire world flood, but again, poetic license).
    So again, you agree that the story of Noah and the Flood is false.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryHill)
    So you agree with me.
    Animal farm never literally happened. So it's pointless using that book as a guide to forming one's moral compass?

    So again, you agree that the story of Noah and the Flood is false.
    That's the single most nit-picky way you could have interpreted that. I think that it's a story that probably has a core of truth to it, but after thousands of years of being passed down orally it's not going to be 100% accurate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Animal farm never literally happened. So it's pointless using that book as a guide to forming one's moral compass?
    But that's not what is under discussion here.
    Remember that Christians, despite all the claims of metaphor and allegory, actually believe that a supernatural being created the universe from nothing, and that he came to earth in human form as a means of saving us from eternal torment at the hands of himself.
    That is clearly fantasy, and no amount of equivocation over the meaning of passages of the Bible will change that.

    That's the single most nit-picky way you could have interpreted that. I think that it's a story that probably has a core of truth to it, but after thousands of years of being passed down orally it's not going to be 100% accurate.
    Of course it's not accurate! It is physically impossible and the geological record shows it never happened. And yet, the Bible is very specific about it. As I said, if the extraordinary claims of Christianity are universally agreed by Christians to be false, what is the point of it?
    Also worth bearing in mind that the story of Noah is in the Quran as well, and that cannot be claimed as metaphor or allegory. It is the actual words of god, as dictated to Muhammad and unchanged for 1400 years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryHill)
    But that's not what is under discussion here.
    Remember that Christians, despite all the claims of metaphor and allegory, actually believe that a supernatural being created the universe from nothing, and that he came to earth in human form as a means of saving us from eternal torment at the hands of himself.
    That is clearly fantasy, and no amount of equivocation over the meaning of passages of the Bible will change that.
    They don't all believe that. Many do, and those people are wrong, but there's a significant number of Christians who view all of the old testament stuff allegorically. And if you do that, there are plenty of valuable things to take away from the texts.

    Of course it's not accurate! It is physically impossible and the geological record shows it never happened. And yet, the Bible is very specific about it. As I said, if the extraordinary claims of Christianity are universally agreed by Christians to be false, what is the point of it?
    Also worth bearing in mind that the story of Noah is in the Quran as well, and that cannot be claimed as metaphor or allegory. It is the actual words of god, as dictated to Muhammad and unchanged for 1400 years.
    Not strictly true. Again, a flood covering the entire globe didn't happen. Poetic license. But cataclysmic floods have happened during the lifetime of humans, as evidenced by the relatively young signs of flooding in the now-empty Washington River Basin.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenryHill)
    Ah, the old "If you assume a different meaning to what the words actually say..." argument.

    The "question begging" must be done by the person asserting that physically impossible things actually happened. Dead people do not come back to life. Human conception is not possible without both egg and sperm. For them to be possible requires a "miracle", and it is such an event that is being examined, so it is question begging to assert that miracles are possible when examining the possibility of miracles.

    I didn't claim that every element of Christianity was present in earlier beliefs, just that it contains elements of earlier beliefs, but as far as Jesus as god, there are countless examples of gods presenting as human.
    Didnt you say they were demonstrably false?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Didnt you say they were demonstrably false?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I said...
    "Every supernatural claim made about Christianity, that can be judged on evidence, has been shown to be false."
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 10, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.