23, I am surprised. You obviously appreciate the scientific method where truth is arrived at by a processing of evidence, so I would think you'd be more impressed with Christianity. Perhaps you were misinformed. Actually very little has to be taken by blind faith with Jesus. Unlike most other religions (the only other exception being maybe Judaism) where the main points require blind acceptance of their truth claims, Christianity is so well grounded in history and fact that it does not need require "blind faith."
40 comments
I wish that people who make these claims for historical evidence for Xtianity (or any other religion for that matter) would actually present some of it, or point us in its direction, rather than just saying it's there.lot more converts.
[where the main points require blind acceptance of their truth claims, Christianity is so well grounded in history and fact that it does not need require "blind faith." ]
Yeah, because it is historically accurate that a talking snake tricked a rib woman into eating an apple.
No. Christianity is grounded in the Bible, and Christians always, at the root of the issue, take the Bible on faith.
Christianity is so well grounded in history and fact that it does not need require "blind faith."
Which history is that again? I seems to have forgotten, could you point me to the evidence?
"Actually very little has to be taken by blind faith with Jesus."
Just the existence of God, Christ being his divine son, his rising from the grave, four legged insects, all of science being wrong so Genesis can be right, etc. Nah not much faith there. Idiot.
I laughed so hard I broke my chair and fell on my back. Seriously. I cut myself in the process. Still chuckling, though. Good show, Wheat Bread, good show. Wait, he's not serious, is he? Let me laugh even harder.
Then it's not a religion, is it?
I guess you'll be paying all those back taxes to the government now.
This is the sort of statement I like to point to when people tell me that the religious have a totally different, faith-based paradigm for knowledge and truth and that it's unfair to expect them to abide by rationalistic standards. It's mostly not true: push a believer on how they justify their belief and, 8 or 9 times out of 10, you'll get a claim similar to Wheat Bread's. "All the prophecies in the Bible have come true!", for example, or "There are no historical flaws in the Bible - it's the most perfect book ever, so it must come from God!" etc. Or if they're slightly more intellectual, they'll offer pseudo-logical proofs for why the universe must be the work of a personal creator who cares for us. They'll rarely say, "You just have to accept it on faith."
Fundies largely accept, in a general way, the principle of backing up assertions with testable, empirical evidence, and most believe they have it for their religion. It's not a "different way of knowing," it's just "making stuff up." And therefore, open to criticism and refutation (and mockery) on the same grounds that any other b.s. claims would be, religious or not.
Yes it does require blind faith to believe that a supernatural being watches over one. And that blind faith makes Christianity an unreasonable proposition.
However, the following facts need to be taken in to account as well:-
There is no god and it definitely does not exist.
Love ya, Pule.
Um, what religion is Christianty based on, again?
Oh, that's right - Judaism.
FAIL.
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza." - Penn Jilette, "Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit!'"
If the "all-knowing" god of the bible had simply included ONE unit of information of a modern invention or event which could not have been foreseen. That would not include matters that would have been logically been the product of an intelligent mind looking at likely future developments. It would not include the horoscope style predictions that are so vague that they could mean anything you want them to mean. It would require something like a prediction of computers, radio, automobiles, the American continent, kangaroos, man on the moon, rockets, DNA, bacteria, etc. It is very telling that the bible contains not one single such prediction. There is not one single "prophecy" which was not just an extension of matters already familiar to men and women of the Bronze Age. That is the most telling lack which appears in the attempt to elevate the bible to anything more that the writings of a primitive and savage people.
*Chokes on water*
Whaaaat?!
Jesus's speech to Thomas indicates that only those who actually saw Jesus in the flesh have encountered incontrovertible proof of Jesus's existence--and that's assuming that particular incident took place.
Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.
Please cite the scientific research that proves the existence of Angels, Souls, Trinities, Original Sin, Heaven, Demons, Hell, Miracles and Worldwide Flood. Bonus credit given for theories justifying why iron Chariots can defeat God, why the Bible says God creates evil, and reconciling all the different versions of Jesus's last words.
Gee, let's see, I guess the Roman crucified so many that one could be forgotten,,,
Oh yeah, Christians claim a bright celestial light shone down on a stable for quite awhile, long enough for three Kings to journey right to there. The Romans had occupied Bethleham and were doing a census but,,,No mention of such an odd event,,,no investigation by soldiers,,,no documentation despite census takers being present
wonder why? It's almost like it never happened
Actually, as Islam is much younger than Christianity and Judaism, it's easier to find historical facts for that, than the older two.
All three have the same main points, really:
Yet you have nothing that corroborates one single event or person described in the bible. Funny, that. You'd think that little matters like dead men coming alive, global floods, and loaves of bread multiplying by themselves would have worked their way into other records of the time.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
