Fallacies in Christianity

[RDK]

What do you guys think about the beginning of the earth (without a designer) with regards to probability? Surely, you must concede that it is immensely improbable for sheer coincidence to create the world we currently live in?

Okham's Razor vs. Darwin's Longsword.

Alt and Reaver answered your post adequately, but I just have to point out that you have a deep misunderstanding of what evolution actually entails. It has virtually nothing to do with the "creation" of the earth, or even how life started. That's abiogenesis.

 

[aeghrur]

Probability of big bang>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of some mysterious god making everything from nothing without any proof behind his actions along with tons of other ideas that can work too.

 

[Mewter]

Probability of big bang>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of some mysterious god making everything from nothing without any proof behind his actions/no necessity for it along with tons of other ideas that can't work too.

Fixed....
I think that works...

 

[Reaver197]

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

Something for people to read if they're interested/bored.

 

[Peeze]

Probability of big bang>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of some mysterious god making everything from nothing without any proof behind his actions along with tons of other ideas that can work too.

Is this really what this thread has deteriorated into? Lol.

 

[aeghrur]

Is this really what this thread has deteriorated into? Lol.

It never deteriorated. It was like this when the first God was brought up.

 

[Peeze]

....its a topic about Christianity.

 

[aeghrur]

Exactly, lol. The whole topic is basically just saying:
The probability for christianity is MINUSCULE, it would never happen. Your God is most likely not real because...
Then, we offer a more probably solution.
Whole thread of probabilities, lol.

 

[Reaver197]

The thread wasn't only consisting of probabilities. There was also the pointing out of contradictions in the Christian creed and bible, and also how religion has led people to do a whole slew of immoral and terrible things.

 

[Peeze]

At least there was discussion about it instead of a string of >>>>>>>>>>>>>'s.
Not all religions have led people to do immoral things. All generalizations are false...except that one.

 

[Reaver197]

Maybe not, maybe yes. I'll concede the point that there might have been a religion in the entirety of human history that didn't actually cause the death and suffering of people, but, at the same time, an overwhelming majority of religions have. However, we don't really have any way of proving that some religion has never produced any sort of harm.

Also, technically, not all generalizations are false. All humans are mammals, all planets are made up of matter, light always moves at the speed of light regardless of your speed or acceleration, etc. But, ah, I debate a silly point.

I do agree that the discussion would be nicer if it didn't resort to such frivolous, um, syntax I guess.

 

[Peeze]

But discord in religion doesn't disprove the existence of God, just the stupidity of man.

Maybe not, maybe yes. I'll concede the point that there might have been a religion in the entirety of human history that didn't actually cause the death and suffering of people, but, at the same time, an overwhelming majority of religions have. However, we don't really have any way of proving that some religion has never produced any sort of harm.

Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[Eor]

Exactly, lol. The whole topic is basically just saying:
The probability for christianity is MINUSCULE, it would never happen. Your God is most likely not real because...
Then, we offer a more probably solution.
Whole thread of probabilities, lol.

The thread was about fallacies in the Christian religion, nothing about probabilities or other religions.

 

[RDK]

But discord in religion doesn't disprove the existence of God, just the stupidity of man.

Why is man "stupid" in the first place? Evolution, or because God made him that way?

 

[Reaver197]

Hmm, I didn't say anything about the discordance in religion, let alone saying that it disproved the existence of a god. But, I would say, giving the many conflicting views that religions have had over the nature and number of gods there are, it does bring to mind the possibility that there might be no god.

It's nothing to outright disprove a god(s), but if there was one (or several), and he/she/it/them did create, interact and influence human affairs, why is there such disparate views? Maybe, just maybe, it's because people are simply making up a supernatural being, and by virtue of the differences in environment, culture, and degree of reasonableness and sanity, such different ideas of god(s) are formed.

But, I digress, as this thread is primarily for the dealing with christian dogma.

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, I found this interesting little site.

http://whatstheharm.net/jehovahswitnesses.html

It also contains a list of various harmful things done by other things, such as chiropractics, astrology, even, funnily enough, feng shui.

Here's a wikipedia entry for some controversial aspects of the Jehova's Witnesses cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_Jehovah's_Witnesses

I would also argue that the huge amounts of (untaxed) money "donated" (is it really voluntary if the members are made to believe they have to give it up in order to ensure their continued well-being?) to churches and such in the way are inflicting several layers of harm, the most obvious being that people who can ill-afford to give up money will do so for their church. However, more indirectly, such capitol is not going to what I would say are more important institutions, such as medical centers researching the cure for cancer.

Edit: Another article that I found that doesn't quite directly tie in with our discussion, but has some applicability.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=33

 

[Peeze]

Or what if the disunity and lack of agreement was caused to make people think there is no god? what if the bible foretold that that would happen.(i cor 4:4) Or even more radically, what if God doesn't control the world and is letting man do what it wants to do?(1 john 5:19)
I admit the plethora(word of the day) of religions is discouraging to see, and really makes you question the existence of god, but when doctors argue or dont disagree on a certain treatment, does that shake your faith in modern medicine?

Their decision to refuse blood harms no one but them self. Besides its a myth that only Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood or that its dumb to do so. Bloodless surgeries often lead to quicker recovery times and shorter hospital stays.
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P3731.htm

A Time article on a JW that had 90% blood loss from internal hemorrhaging, had bloodless surgery and recovered in 4 days:

http://www.time.com/time/reports/heroes/bloodless.html

EDIT: oh and bloodless surgeries save hospitals close to 2 billion dollars annually.

Didn't read that last article there, kinda pressed for time.

 

[Reaver197]

The caveat to that is the fact that there were peoples and religious beliefs that existed before even Judaism was even formed. Abraham, if he ever really actually existed, lived about 1800 BC. The Egyptians predates that with their religious beliefs to about 3000 BC. Hinduism, while not as well documented as the Egyptians, is estimated to have existed for about 50,000 years now, far outstripping the Judaic religions. The aborigines in Australia might have had their religious beliefs for about 60,000 years.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_known_religion_in_the_world

To say claim that they essentially are fabricated lies with absolutely no evidence to back up such a position is just outrageous and immature denial of a truth that is incompatible with Christian belief. Why would a god, who supposedly made all people in the first place, have the "wrong" or "improper" religions to exist far before the "right" ones ever did. Not to mention the fact that Hinduism had existed for longer than Judaism or Christianity has, before they were even, and I have no other word to describe it, invented.

This is further corroborated by the fact that Christianity isn't even an original religion. It blatantly takes elements of earlier religious beliefs, namely Egyptian and Hellenic ones. For example, Osiris and Dionysus are respectively Egyptian and Hellenic mythological figures that share many features that Jesus has, but predates the supposed birth of Jesus. It seems that these elements were common and popular features for messiah figures in the Mediterranean region, and that they were recycled and used for the story of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris-Dionysus

So, there is not only the fact that there are religions that have existed way before Judaism ever did that have very little in common with it, but there are also religions that existed before Christianity (and probably Judaism too, considering all things, but I haven't really seen any studies into it) that share very similar elements to it which Christianity seem to have taken and accepted as part of their dogma.

Also, if god didn't control the world, why bother doing anything in here in his name? If he's a god that just created everything, and then just sat back and let everything run its course, there really isn't much point spending time and energy worshiping him, and having everyone act and adhere to certain dogmas.

The doctor allegory isn't all that good of one. Medicine isn't an exact science. It can be a highly individualized process, and experts can disagree as how it's best to proceed, not the least because medicinal knowledge isn't 100% comprehensive, and the technology and pharmaceuticals available are always increasing. Doctors are human and fallible, not any doctor in the world knows all the medicinal knowledge there is to know, it's a very specialized field where different doctors can come from different perspectives and disagree over what's the best way to treat a patient.

As for the bloodless surgeries info, that's pretty interesting. I never knew about that, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I can't say I've really ever kept abreast the field of medicine, so my technical knowledge of it is not the best.

Anyway, as for Jehovah's Witnesses, I am leery of continuing a debate about the technicalities and details of a rather small sect of Christianity, considering all else that is being debated in this thread. But, unfortunately, it was the religious beliefs that caused them to bring the harm upon themselves. It would be safe to assume that their well-being would not have been so severely affected if they did not carry such ridiculous beliefs. I'm following the legal definition of proximate cause here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

I also never said that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the only ones who refused blood transfusions. I was simply pointing out that Jehovah's Witnesses and their belief system directly led to the harm of people's well-being.

As for whether it's dumb to refuse blood transfusions, I can't speak for all cases or all medicinal procedures, but I think in these particular cases, the refusal of blood transfusions was detrimental to their health. Also, bloodless surgeries doesn't mean no blood transfusions at all. From the wikipedia article:

Contemporary usage of "bloodless surgery" refers to both invasive and noninvasive medical techniques and protocols. The term is somewhat confusing.[6] The expression does not mean surgery that makes no use of blood or blood transfusion. Rather, it refers to surgery performed without transfusion of allogeneic blood.[7][8] Champions of bloodless surgery do, however, transfuse products made from allogeneic blood and they also make use of predonated blood for autologous transfusion.[9]

Either way, Christianity as a whole, of which JW is but a part, has caused much suffering and harm anyway. I guess I should've just short-circuited that whole little argument by just pointing out that JW isn't really a separate religion, but a sect.

 

[Peeze]

Why would a god, who supposedly made all people in the first place, have the "wrong" or "improper" religions to exist far before the "right" ones ever did

I addressed this dude, he didnt have them exist, he doesn't control the world, nor does he claim to,(1 john5:19)(1 cor 4:4) The fact that there are that many religions proves that, because im sure you would agree a jealous god would want one religion serving him.

I also never said that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the only ones who refused blood transfusions. I was simply pointing out that Jehovah's Witnesses and their belief system directly led to the harm of people's well-being.

I'll bet a one week ban(jk jk) that more people have died from accepting a blood transfusion than from refusing one. Even if they don't die, transfusions increase the risk of stroke renal imparment.
In fact the American Heart Association concludes:
Red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery is strongly associated with both infection and ischemic postoperative morbidity, hospital stay, increased early and late mortality, and hospital costs.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/con...ns&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Regardless of all else JWs are people and have the right to refuse treatment, just as some refuse dialysis or transplants, or khemotherapy, or life support, and are not frowned upon.
But your right lets not make this a matter of blood transfusions or a part of christianity.(lol even though Christianity itself started as a sect of Judaism)

 

[Reaver197]

Well, I looked up both those passages you gave me. For 1 John 5:19, the passage does not at all seem do induce the meaning you're telling me it does, unless I'm grossly misunderstanding something.

5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

As for the Corinthians passage, it was actually 2 Corinthians 4:4 that says what you were getting at.

4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

However, it seems that in other passages of the bible, god himself apparently purposefully made people not believe in him (seriously, what).

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/force.html

In combination with the the first commandment, thou shalt have no other gods before me, and the fact that the bible seems to, though contradictorily, impress the belief that the authors thought him omnipotent (though I certainly with the sentiment that he can't be), you're painting up an awfully confusing and contradictory position here.

Just to make this perfectly clear, you're saying that god is not really that powerful at all, having no control over the world, by the fact that other religions exist? Even though this flies in the face of the very book that you're attempting to use to justify that position?

All the more, if god is really as weak as you claim him to be, why bother with him at all?

As for the blood fusion thing, I wouldn't really doubt it if more people have died as a result of a blood transfusion (considering infections and diseases and such) than people who haven't, but you're making a fallacy here. There is probably a much smaller proportion of people who would outright refuse a blood transfusion, rather than the amount of people who would accept a transfusion if it were recommended to them by their doctor, so such a bet doesn't mean much.

Anyway, I'm not questioning their right to refuse blood transfusions, or how dangerous/safe it is. I'm simply trying to point out the fact that these people in a situation where the risk of dying from getting a blood transfusion was less than refusing one, yet they refused it anyway, not for any rational, medical reasons, but just as a matter of some blind, preordained instruction from a time where people did not use blood transfusions and probably never thought that such a practice would ever happen.

Ah, let me wash myself of this blood transfusion stuff though. I must say I learned some bit about them though, thanks to you.

 

[Peeze]

Ah, let me wash myself of this blood transfusion stuff though. I must say I learned some bit about them though, thanks to you.

No problem, anytime.

I'm not implying that God is weak, or that he isn't omnipotent. Put it this way. God said dnt eat the fruit, satan said eat it. Man chose to listen to satan, God said fine have it your way, stepped back and let man rule themself. The results? The world as we know it.

 

[Reaver197]

Ah, hmm, ok.

The only question I have to ask is for what reasons do you believe this is so? The passages you gave me to explain it has only left me more confused about how and why you believe it.

Edit: An interesting article I found.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

And a lecture I found by Richard Feynman.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html