Why can't people see that Christianity preys on people's ignorance?

Question

What are the big issues in Christianity?

• What happens to you when you die?
• How did we get here?
• What's the meaning of life?

What do they have in common? We don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Science has given us a decent understanding of one of them, and is beginning to shed light on another... but all three questions are unanswered.

Christianity offers simple answers to these big questions that everyone asks at some point in their lives... the problem is that it does not offer sufficient evidence to support these answers. We are expected to believe, by faith, that these answers are correct... and today, with the knowledge we have contrary to these claims, we are expected to ignore real evidence and believe, by faith, that what was sufficient millennia ago is still sufficient today... sans inquiry.

These 3 questions are valid ones, that deserve proper inquiry and evidentiary support... not superstitious opinion.

Answer 1

They are afraid that there is no afterlife, afraid of how we got here, and afraid their is no meaning to their individual existence.---so they believe because they have to--the alternative is too frightening for them.

Answer 2

First, the three questions you propose are not the big issues in Christianity. Far from it. True, we often may think of these issues, but to say that they are "big issues" gives them more value than they are worth. Honestly, when was the last time any of us have asked ourselves one of these questions?

If I had to pick the top three I would say:
What happens to me when I sin? This is a universial question that plays in one's mind when they do things that they know they should not. It glares at us when we are young and we disobey our parent's, for example, and we try to cover up our actions so we don't get punished by them

What is the meaning of MY life? Another question that we all ask at some point. No one wants to go through life and then discover that there was no meaning to it. We all seek to become successful for this very reason--we want meaning to our life.

What moral standard do I live by? The ultimate question that has too many answers from which to choose. It bounces from the above question and finds expression in how we answer it.

These questions are answerable in our lives and forms the foundation of all religions.

Science does give us the answers to these questions, but they often lack meaning in our own quest for an answer. For example there are moral standards placed before us each day. We see the good that the Red Cross, for example, does in times of need and we can follow thir example. But then we have Paris Hilton! What do we do with her example?

You say that religion "does not offer sufficient evidence to support these answers.". Well, if I looked at the evidence for evolution and found it to be wanting (as many have), do you expect me to accept it with "blind faith"? Show me how the eye developed for example for no one knows.

We all accept many things on blind faith with little or no evidence to back it up. You receive a check from your employer, you deposit it in the bank and write checks against that deposit. But have you seen the money that backs it up? No, but you accept on blind faith that it is there, and that no one has hacked into the banks computer and cleaned out your account!

You also say "...and today, with the knowledge we have contrary to these claims, we are expected to ignore real evidence and believe, by faith..." but you have not stated what you are speaking about. But let me postulate this--Science has said many things in the past that were later proven to be wrong. Haven't we been told that tomorrow will be "sunshine, high in the low to mid 80's, so enjoy the day" only to awake to overcast skies with rain falling later in the day. Do I quit watching the weather? Or do you go to the doctor to be bled so you recover from a cold? No! Science is not the great "Answer to Everything" and many understand that and accept it as part of our growth in knowledge.

Christianity provides to those who accept it the proof they need. Just as you "know" that 2 and 2 are 4...or is it 22??(notice I said 2 and 2, not 2 plus 2 or 2 times 2)

Answer 3

Yes, exactly, if you are a theist then you are expected to believe without proof. Why don't you understand this ? Believers don't need scientific proof, that is their right in a democracy, the right to choose what they believe.
Science offers simple answers too. 1 + 1 = 2. simple. Doesn't mean an answer is wrong just because it is simple.
And exactly which of the three has science given us a decent understanding of ? Evolution may explain how we are the way we are now, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.

Answer 4

Science gives you definite answers and security. However, the problem you have is that you want definite answers. Some questions won't be answered in this life, and people should be free to believe what they want. Not everyone is coerced to believe a religion. I looked at the evidence, believe that what is said in Christianity is true, and no one forced me to believe everything.

Until you can prove beyond doubt that God does not exist, you have to allow people to believe what they want.

Answer 5

You're expecting us to go by science for the answers? The very ones who said it was impossible to fly? That the plague was caused by odors? That we'd never leave the earths atmosphere? That we would never submerge under water? That certain diseases would never be cured? Etc...

Science is so fallable how could anyone rely solely upon it? It definitely does not have the answers to lifes questions, so why depend on it?

If by faith, we believe God supplies us those answers, then what harm does it do? If you choose to disbelieve God and the answers He provides, then so be it. But you cannot dissuade others from their faith if that's what gives them hope. What right do you have to do that?

If you think God is superstition, then that is the sad decision that you have made. But as for me, I'm sticking with the Lord, because He has proven real to me and done more for me than science could ever dream of.

Answer 6

All religions answer the first two, plus what is the problem and what is the solution to the problem. Simple answers to the questions? Oh, like: nothing; best guess is lightening and amino acids; and whatever you make of it? Sufficiently vague yet mentally satisfying.

Answer 7

I don't think those are the three big issues of Christianity. These are

1) According to God's moral standards, we all fall short and deserve condemnation
2) But he has offered us redemption through Christ, if we are willing to atone for sins
3) We must seek righteousness.

Thats it. "How did we get here" is not really a big deal to me, because I know I was born I don't want to waste time wonder WHY. My parents got together and bang here I am. No further explanation is needed.

The meaning of life.... Again I don't think that really matters. I know I have life, so I dont want to waste time wondering what is the purpose of life, I just want to think about how to make it as good as I can.

What happens when we die? I don't really care, I just want to make sure I live as good as I can.

Answer 8

What happens when you die?
You are either with GOD or not.

How did we get here?
Through birth

What's the meaning of life?
To know GOD.

Only the moronic man who thinks his wisdom is above GOD's would make something so simple so complex to confound even himself in his blindness.

Science has its own faith system. It's faith is in man.
Personally, after reviewing the history of man, I'd rather put my faith in GOD than man.

Answer 9

I used to believe exactly like you. My dad was an atheist and he was a brilliant man.Your beliefs are a matter of life and death.I suspect that this "knowledge you have to the contrary" although you didn't plainly spell it out is the THEORY of evolution.I hope that you read my entire answer, there is no superstititous opinion in it.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God" May the Holy Spirit open your eyes.

Answer 10

Christianity isn't superstitious but the only reason this would work out is because everyone else is ignorant. Actually every religion offers answers to big questions ur just picking on christians because ur ot christian and we actually hav proof of our answers. The whole reason why ther is religions is to answer questions like where we go wen we die or how we came about. U don t even kno wut a superstition is. Ur STUPID

Answer 11

anything is possible however if Im going to take a chance on being wrong I'll do so believing.
ALL THE VERY BEST TO YOU.