MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Why Christianity is BS!

Why Christianity is BS!


For the last two thousands years, as science has become more prominent, the need for miracles, the supernatural and magic has disappeared. We don't need the supernatural as an explanation for anything at all-absolutely nothing. There is no magic in the formation of a dew drop, an embryo, a crystal, a snow-flake, or a budding plant. No magic in the formation of volcanoes, planets, tides, thunder-storms, waves, stars, solar-systems, tornadoes, DNA, cells or the Big Bang itself. Horses don't talk, pigs are not possessed by demons, dead people do not zombie, walk around, and float off into the sky, and baby dinosaurs didn't live on the Ark to survive a Great Flood. There is no magic in consciousness, human behavior or mental illness, and epileptics are not demon-possessed. No miracles; no magic; no supernatural; no god! Everything is natural.

I've got a challenge for all of you Bible-believing, miracle-believing Christians out there. A whole bunch of you, hundreds and thousands should gather in a mega-church along with an amputee. The Christians should pray with all of your hearts and souls, and I mean "praise Jesus" and "in the name of Jesus" prayers; y'all can even speak in tongues, but you've got to believe that your Lord will come through for you and pull off a miracle, a big one. Y'all pray that the amputee's legs grow back. I'll be there, because if I see a miracle, I'll become a Bible believing Christian. I'll be there passing out Mountain Dews to the parched. We'll stay there for days and even weeks as we pray. And we will watch as his legs do not grow back. Just think if a small, or a big, miracle was ever confirmed. Just think!

reply

I'm an agnostic but I'll give you my opinion anyway. I have been convinced by the scholars who say that there probably was a historical figure who was crucified by the Romans for incitement. And that the Jesus legend that slowly took shape and grew after his death is based on him but that he was not a miracle worker or the son of God.

Having said that Christianity is one of the foundation stones of Western Civilisation. The sovereignty of the individual or in other words the idea that all people's lives have worth comes from Christianity and from that the rule of law and the eventual abolition of slavery. Christianity in other words was the antidote to barbarism and now that Christianity is in decline barbarism is on the rise.

So be careful what you wish for and don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



reply

I'll agree with you, but with a few caveats.

I can accept that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans about two-thousand years ago, but like you, I think he was not a miracle worker or the son of god. I absolutely deny all of the miracles that he supposedly performed. I think the stories of those miracles are lies. In this case, I will throw the Baby out with the bath water. Jesus and his miracles have got to go.

Second, i agree that Christianity is a foundation of Western Civilization, but with a heavy dose of Enlightenment ideas, Roman republican ideas, Greek democracy and the Scientific Revolution thrown in. I'll even agree that Christians and Christian ideas were instrumental in the abolition of slavery if you will concede that the The Bible does not unequivocally condemn slavery. In fact, it condones and supports slavery in places. Again, I'll throw the baby out with the bath-water: Early Christianity, the miracle-filled, "Jesus is the only way" Christianity, without the influence of science and humanism, has got to go.

reply

Good luck with that. Even if I agree with you - and in a lot of ways I do - we should focus on things we CAN change.
And even if I'm philosophically opposed to organized religion, the obliteration of Christianity doesn't sound like it would make me much happier. I just hope people can take the good it offers and not get carried away with what isn't provable or helpful to a harmonious society.

reply

Cool! Thanks for a thoughtful response.

reply

there is virtually no historical evidence for jesus. some romanized (& traitorous) jew named josephus is it, and the passages referring to jesus almost certainly were inserted by christian writers later.

jesus is, in terms of objective history, as enshrouded / fabulous in substance as abraham & moses.

reply

Yes I know that there is no acknowledged indisputable evidence that Jesus ever existed. But the probability is that there was an ordinary historical person that the miraculous Jesus of the New Testament started out being based on. Otherwise what was Paul the Apostle making a fuss about and before him James the brother of Jesus and Peter and John in Jerusalem that Paul was in contact with ?


reply

that's the euhemerism take. another theory goes the other way - that celestial mythic gods (osiris, isis) with their rising and falling/death and rebirth/rerising are subsequently endowed in human character, or as 'children of the gods'.

there is no compelling reason to assume that the myth of jesus has historical roots. that is certainly a possibility, but the absence of any esp. roman, or other unambiguously contemporaneous record (other than the problematical josephus previously mentioned) argues against.

reply

And instead of realizing that Roman sources didn't keep a written record of every single human being, you believe that somebody just pulled the foundation of a whole world religion out of their ass!
Right... Are you willing to claim that Buddha and Muhammed didn't exist either?

reply

jesus may or may not have been a man - the religion accreted in the centuries following, the gospels written by committees, etc. if you like it, you can have it. but i will not assent to any coherent historical evidence for jesus the man. ymmv.

btw, you seem touchy. if you think i'm being stupid or obstinate for not agreeing with whatever it is you believe a priori, i can live with that. regarding historical evidence for mohammed and buddha, mohammed is well established historically, buddha considerably less so, being lately bracketed around 400BCE.

it should be mentioned that neither of these last two purported to be or were purported to be gods, but rather prophets & seers, whose philosophies likely stand upon their intrinsic merits, no miracles claimed or required.

reply

For me, the gospels are sufficient proof that Jesus really existed and was a real historical figure. Even if you don't believe in the miracles or in that he was a demigod (I'm not sure that I do either), why should we think that Jesus as a person walking around in Israel was made up by somebody?

I'm sorry if I come across as touchy, but I just don't get the urge that some people have to say that Jesus did not exist. I guess that most of them just want to discredit Christianity.

reply

i respect your feelings, F. i will agree that its far likelier that jesus the man did exist than not. its just that we don't have a lot of solid historical evidence. peace.

reply

K

reply

Who was the better man, Trotsky, or........Jesus

reply

Well, poor Trotsky, the Communist, was a real man who lost out to Joseph Stalin and got himself assassinated in Mexico City, but he's got a cool name. Jesus on-the-other-hand is largely a myth, especially his miracles and his Resurrection, and this idea that if you don't accept him as the Savior that you will be condemned to hell for eternity (f-cking eternity! for having a sincere belief) is the most evil concept that could ever have been dreamt up. So, I'll take Trotsky.

reply

Curious as to why you single out just Christianity and fail to mention all the others. Why not make your argument about all religion?

reply

That's a good question. I've got a few answers: First, I live in the southern United States and am surrounded by Christians, most of them conservative and very political. Around here, Christianity is more political than it is spiritual.I hate it! There are very few Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Wiccans around here. And, besides the Islam and Christianity, my understanding is that most other religions do not proselytize. They are happy that other people have their own beliefs and do not push their own believes onto others. This idea that Christianity is exclusive and should be pushed repulses me. But the idea of eternal hell as a punishment for having the wrong belief is the most evil concept ever. I hate it. So there you go.

reply

Christianity should not be "political." Politics is evil. I question anyone who mixes the two.

reply

I agree.

reply

I though that was a core part of being a 'righty'
- blame all the worlds failings on softy decadent liberals
- beleive in god like phet taking fundamentalist!
- persecute abortion

reply

Abortion is murder and should be persecuted.

reply

Fair enough, I'm not a practicing Christian myself, and don't have much contact with ultra-religious types, I do appreciate some values and teachings from certain religions but heavily dislike political religion, it should remain spiritual and personal in my opinion.

reply

Cool. I agree.

reply

The problem is that some secular "Liberals" are as bad as the most aggressive religious fundamentalists.
They too want to push their beliefs down other people's throats.

reply

I wish you didn't feel that way. I'd hope that what secular liberals want is for the public square, government, courthouses, public parks, public schools, etc. to be neutral concerning religion and Christianity. Just neutral! For example, the county recently put :"In God We Trust" on our county courthouse. Isn't that wrong and infringe on my First amendment rights? It's my courthouse too, right?

reply

Well, I have to say that I have seen aggression against the opponents coming from both camps.

About "In God we trust", lots of people would be upset if it was removed from public buildings.
But I wouldn't be surprised if a discussion about it will happen soon enough.

reply

Bless you my child

reply

Thank you, but I doubt it will work, unless I'm lucky.

reply

As George Michael said bud, you gotta have faith.. or was it wake me up before you go go? Dunno, that poof said lots of crazy shit.

reply

He was praying for time!

reply

Miracles are rare, but Saint Padre Pio was a miracle worker. There are so many miracles that defy science, such as the case of Gemma Di Giorgi, who was born without pupils.

They prayed to him while he was still alive, went to see him and before they arrived she started to be able to see. No pupils grew, but she was given the gift of sight.

Here is her story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp9TgyjlnS0

reply

Do you understand that if a real miracle happened and it was verified by science, and the miracle was not some minor shit in some hidden, obscure place and verified only by the Roman Catholic Church and who don't need to be convinced of anything, how big it would be? It would change everything. Seriously, why not legs growing back? You know why; Miracles don't happen, Ever!

reply

A full regeneration is the only proof you need? What about cancer disappearing?

reply

Modern Catholic saints cannot be canonized without scientific proof of at least two medical miracles.

These miracles do not occur to satisfy as*hole communist atheists, who wouldn't believe them even if they witnessed one in person. They occur as a result of faith.

My uncle is a doctor who witnessed a medical miracle; he discovered a tumor the size of a grapefruit. He assumed the woman would die, as it was beyond medical treatment. He gave her a prayer card for a man being considered for sainthood. She prayed and the tumor simply disappeared. This case was not even submitted for the canonization. The man got sainthood from proof of other miracles.

reply

Wow, amazing! Can I ask which saint?

reply

That was Saint Mubblegawpdunglupzoxiffor of Jubbygootigglerumbottom on the Lake. Besides the miracle mentioned above, he also made a rock fly through the air for a good 50 yards, made solid wood float on water, and even turned a grape into a raisin! Now I know some people say "Well, raisins came from grapes", but answer me this then, why haven't we found any transitional fossils in the fossil record?

reply

That's no miracle. About 1 in 10,000 tumors disappear by themselves (or something like that, I don't remember the exact number). It's rare, but it happens.

Indeed, there was a study about the Lady of Fatima, in Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima). Pilgrims used to go there and pray to be cured. Now, the funny thing: if you calculate the percentage of people who reported having been cured of a tumor by the Lady of Fatima between the total of pilgrims, the percentage was lower than the percentage of tumors that disappear by themselves.

In a nutshell: if you went on a pilgrimage to Fatima, you actually had less chances of being "miraculously" cured than if you just stayed home browsing moviechat 😄

reply

My God, miracles happen, but always someplace else and never limbs growing back. You know why. i know why. Miracles are bullsh-t!

reply

Good question. It doesn't have to be a full regeneration of limbs, but it' must be something that could not be explained by anything else. Unexplained cancer remissions happen all the time and are not miracles.

reply

Being an atheist does not make ones life better. And worse, they’ll spend their life trying to convince others they’re wrong. In the end their beliefs require as much faith as a Christian’s.

None of us will know the answer until we’re dead. The Christian though will lead a life of inspiration and positivity. And the atheist, a life of negativity, obsessive hate, and anger. Why else make this post?

There are no inspiring atheists. And very few who are truly accomplished. That’s just the way it is.

You’ll ever hear an atheist say, hey come on down and hear what we have to say. Maybe you’ll like it. If not, the doors open, have a nice day.

”there are no atheists in foxholes”

reply

^^^This!^^^

reply

Why do you generalize? I bet there are a lot of people out there no matter their belief who are miserable, who hate, and have anger, and lots of people no matter their belief who live with positivity and inspiration.

John Lennon was atheist. Like him or not, you can't deny that he was accomplished.

You have just illustrated that you don't like what others have to say, so pot or kettle?

reply

enstein was an atheist.

reply

My beliefs don't require faith at all. Did you read my post. I reject things that require faith. I have confidence in science and the scientific method, but that is exactly the opposite of believing in floating god men, talking horses and possessed pigs. Dude, read!

reply

Men of science have believed, and had faith in, some pretty insane shit in history, It is the nature of the scientific method itself. Science actually is agnosticism. By way of the scientific method, we discover how wrong we were the last time we used the scientific method. Being a rigid, science-is-ultimate-truth person make one as inflexible as a religious zealot. Scientific paradigms change. We learn shit that makes us look at our ancestors as morons. So true science is always "as far as we know" because you have to be open to being wrong. Science is agnostic. Historically, we have believed in some shit very nearly as wacky as floating god men, etc thanks to empirical testing.

I don't believe in ghosts nor alien visitors. However, I am spiritual. Faith has improved my life big time. I don't mind atheists at all. I'm not pushing my belief on anyone. Fuck that. Angry atheists are as annoying as proselytizing Christians.

What's interesting is the number of scientists that believe in God.

reply

Good post! I agree partially. Science might be agnostic towards god, but science, when faced with a problem that it can't presently answer, like "what preceded the Big Bang", cannot resort to "well, god did it" or "it was a miracle." Scientists can only say "we don't presently know." Only idiots and Christians would believe god was the cause of thunder, or demon possession was the cause of epilepsy. Idiots and Christians should shut up. As for there being Christian scientists, of course there are, but probably a lower percentage than in the general population. They kind of turn off their magic-believing, miracles-are-real, selves when doing science, though. If they didn't they would be as stupid as Trump supporters who believe the Clinton's had thirty or more people killed. A real scientist could not believe the Universe is less than 20, 000 years old. That belief takes retardation. Nor could a real scientist hold to the view that a dew drop is held in place by little fairies. See?

reply

Our current science shows an age of the universe but our guesses change. I'm no "Dinosaurs are the work of the devil" type but I could be open to our time measurements being way off. Isn't it a bit precious to get angry at people who don't accept scientific studies when they are routinely proven wrong by the very same scientists? I, personally, go with whatever the current paradigm is. How can you not?
Southern Baptist types are hard to deal with and their refusal to accept some very basic science is infuriating. I find them as tiresome as aggressive anti-christians.

Interesting that you couldn't help but add your politics into the mix. With that name I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

reply

You got a problem with "trotsky" son? You might want to spend some time reading up on science and figure out why scientists, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, Geneticists and even smart cosmetologists, think the age of the universe is much older than 20, 000 years. and, dude, you missed the entire point of my post with your little pivot.

reply

I'd be fine with a 900 trillion year old universe. Not fine with people who freak out and get shitty about anything.

There is irony to mine in this here thread.

reply

You are not fine with sh-t, and you are too stupid to be ironic. You posted this up above: "Our current science shows an age of the universe but our guesses change." which is about the most ignorant sh-t I've read in a long time, but you dress it up as if you really know something about the science. You don't, and no amount of fake irony or dressing stupid sh-t up can help you, son! But, you seem like a person who does his research, so I'll let you discover why that belongs in retard land, Mr. ironical!

reply

I thought you understood how paradigms of science shift. Don't know why I thought you were interested in anything but a fight.

reply

No, you're right, man. i'm sorry, you didn't write anything bad. I'll back off.

reply

A 37 year hoax, accepted and perpetuated by the mainstream scientific community at the time: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/departments-and-staff/library-and-archives/collections/piltdown-man.html

reply

Men of science have believed, and had faith in, some pretty insane shit in history


Possibly the most perfect example of what you're saying in your post:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvbxgm/the-last-of-the-magicians

reply

I wonder how many atheists you've actually met. Probably none.

How do you explain the fact that the most atheistic countries rank higher on the happiness complex?

reply

I’ve followed the “best countries” to live in rankings for many years, and of course citizen’s happiness is a factor. I’ve done the digging into each individual country on those list to see what the common traits are, and among other things, Christianity is usually a common factor. I’m not promoting Christianity, but there’s something to it if the majority of the population in these successful countries practice it. Look them up and see what you think.

reply

I take exception to your generalisation of atheists. I consider myself one and don't mope around full of negativity, hating on believers. There's plenty of accomplished, inspiring athiests out there too.

reply

None of us will know the answer until we’re dead. The Christian though will lead a life of inspiration and positivity. And the atheist, a life of negativity, obsessive hate, and anger.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

reply

we don't, or at least shouldn't, in my assessment adopt our views as to the nature of things according to our feelings, or preferments.

if we do, we are admitting that we care mostly about our comfort, not about understanding, as best we can, this extraordinary world in which we quite fortunately, even amazingly, exist. religion has no corner on the market of awe and wonder.

i'm guessing there are one or two impressive atheists - people don't have to lie to themselves to get out of bed in the morning, though you may think differently.

reply

You don't lie to yourself when you really believe it.

reply

if you believe without the fullest resort to your reason & experience, you may as well be lying to yourself. to be fully adult, fully human, is to evade nothing, to see everything, and make the most sense of it as we possibly can. and yes, of course, be kind. but honest. better honest than kind.

reply

What does it mean to be fully human? Are we all not fully humans?

reply

to the extent we walk around with blinders of prejudice or stunted capacities to see the world before us, we are not fully human, in a philosophical sense.

but i don't like to quibble. if that doesn't make sense to you, that's fine with me.

reply

Ok, thanks.

reply

Jim Jones was a Christian

reply

I still cringe at the time I wasted in Catechism and getting confirmed. My parents weren't even super religious, but they thought it was the proper thing to do. I look back and see it as a complete waste of time.

reply

I agree!

reply