Why is rational skepticism a vice in Christianity?
923407
It isn't the skepticism that is the problem.  It is the spirit with which it is used. If you are seeking answers in order to find the truth, you will be rewarded with your goal.  If you are looking for perceived flaws and inconsistancies, that's what you will find.\n\nI don't know anything about Gallileo's eyes.
1001366
Yeah, because Christianity does not have any wrinkles. Give me a break, dude. They are both silly religions followed by the weak of mind.
115961
I beleive you have somewhat of a good point....the parables of the Bible and the lessons of Aesop's Fables do seem to have a common thread. In both there exists a message of right verses wrong, the consequences of evil acts and the rewards of decent behavior. Is it any wonder that both have endured the test of time even til this day....~~~
575464
In meta-ethics, moral skepticism (sometimes also referred to as moral error theory and moral nihilism) is a theory which maintains either that ethical claims are always false, or else that we cannot sufficiently justify ethical claims, and must therefore maintain doubt about whether they are true or false.\nContents\n[show]\n\n    * 1 Weak and strong version\n    * 2 Conclusion\n    * 3 See also\n    * 4 References\n    * 5 External links\n\n[edit]\n\nWeak and strong version\n\nThe strong version says that the claim "it is wrong to kill" is false because ethical claims implicitly pre-suppose the existence of objective values, and that these do not exist. The weak position would go no further than saying that we are not epistemically justified in asserting that it is wrong to kill.\n\nThe stronger position is exemplified in J. L. Mackie's book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Mackie does not deny that there is moral goodness in the world. His point is that "goodness" of any sort is always relative to certain desire(s) or interest(s) that are relevant to the context. For example, a sharp, durable knife is usually considered a "good" one, but it counts as good only because knife users have an interest in cutting things, such as food. Sharpness and durability are properties of knives that make them more efficient for such a purpose. Mackie believes that moral discussion typically assumes that there is an objective kind of moral goodness, which transcends any actual desires and interests. This assumption is an error.\n\nMackie's main argument against the existence of objective values is the argument from queerness - objective values would be very peculiar things indeed, fundamentally different from everything else in the world - indeed, they would have to be something like the Platonic forms (which Mackie considers a "wild product of philosophical fancy"). Furthermore, how we are supposed to discover these objective values is mysterious.\n[edit]\n\nConclusion\n\nThe moral skeptic's conclusion is that supposedly objective values (in the sense explained above) are merely useful fictions that function for such purposes as social preservation. Furthermore, it is possible to invent moral values that are more likely to further our actual desires and interests as human beings living in particular historical circumstances.\n\nMackie's position is also known as the "error theory" of morality. Strictly speaking, a more agnostic position that we simply cannot justify ethical claims is also an error theory, as acknowledged by Richard Joyce, who defends such a theory in The Evolution of Morality. In this case, the alleged error is the common belief that moral claims are justifiable.\n\nContemporary defenders of moral skepticism include Joyce, Michael Ruse, Joshua Greene, and the psychologist James Flynn. Strictly speaking, Gilbert Harman's work, which argues in favour of moral relativism, does not advocate moral skepticism, but it has been influential on some contemporary moral skeptics.
481011
That would be faith...or ignorance.  Depends on how much thought goes into it.\n\nPersonally I view faith like this:  If someone believes in god, the bible, etc.  More power to 'em!  However, if you present a different point of view, and they cover their ears, close their eyes and scream, "Lies!"...that's not faith, that's ignorance.\n\nIf they ignore your question and quote the bible...the same book they know nothing about, that's ignorance\n\nIf they KNOW they're right and you're wrong, that's ignorance.\n\nIf they believe in God with knowledge, understanding, acceptence, and reservation that while their faith is absolute, that there are other possibilities, or that we are too ill informed or lack the understanding to comprehend the workings of the universe...that's faith.\n\nTo be agnostic, like I am, means you don't have faith.  Personally, I don't have a clue what's going on.  I know the bible isn't accurate, we've proven Genesis to be wrong 100x over.  However, I do agree with many of its teachings.  How did we get here?  Dunno.  How does life work?  Dunno.  Is there a God?  Dunno.  Is God as the bible describes?  Probably not, but dunno.  Good news about being agnostic is it allows you the freedom to think and examine.  You're not stuck in an organized religion that recites the same thing to you day after day.  Your free to analyze and accept that there are somethings you just don't know.  On the one had its very liberating.  On the other it carries responsibility because you don't have something to blame, or to believe will take care of you...you lose the "knowledge" that everything's under control.\n\nSo, I'm all for agnostic.  I'm comfortable knowing that I don't know. I LOVE studying theology, laughing when a religious person avoids thought, and learning when a religious person makes a good point.\n\nFor examples:  Look to spur4eight.  He'll make intelligent arguements for Christianity.  I disagree with many of them, but hey...that's faith.  For ignorance, look at Mainworry.  He'll ignore questions completely that require any sort of thought towards religion, and reply either with biblical quotes or insults.
413546
Christianity in it's self is a good creed but it is of those who practice it determines if it is good or bad.\n\nNot all christians are mean,hateful,snotty,and judgmental but those who are gives our belief a very bad reputation.
879982
Ok, learn this: people are stupid. For some reason they choose to believe certain idiocracy (good lord, I can't spell >_<) as opposed to others. Trust me, this question isn't going to make chirstians "question their faith" (although most are in desperate need to) even though it is logical, but then again, since when have religons used logic?
667875
Yes, it is.  My religion does not preach this, and it's one of the reasons that I chose to believe what I do.  Actions have consequences.  People should be made to deal with them, even if it's just a guilty conscience.
429277
Are you unwilling to accept the fact that there may be more to this discussion than you or I or anyone else can understand? When you phrase a question the way that you have, you leave no room for the possibility that you may be misinformed. Are you willing to state that there is NO possibility that things may not be as described in the bible? I can tell that you are a devout Christian, but Christianity also preaches acceptance. There are many other beliefs out there. Many of them are viable. People do not need to accept that there is a hell if their belief suggests something else. Just some thoughts; close-mindedness is not a Christian virtue, but it is often a Christian practice. You will have a much more enlightened existence if you allow yourself to occassionally view things from the perspective of somebody else.
583457
Well I'm agnostic but will answer this anyways...\n\nI find this one of Christianity's few logical points.  All people carry some form of greed, arrogance, conflict, etc. in them.  No matter how good a person you are, you WILL sin...its bound to happen.  What the concept of being a sinner means is that Christianity is admitting that its followers will not lead a sinless life (which is realistically true).  Basically, we're imperfect and we know it...but God loves us anyways.\n\nFor non-Christians, its an excuse for Christians to admit they're imperfect while still maintaining that their beliefs are.
95842
No. It differs on the fact that Christianity has a faith different from the others.
639306
agree....we have morals, values, integrity, and sense of what is right--which may vary depending on the person and situation--but, no... I don't believe that I am sinning, and while a religious cat may say that what I am doing is a sin, it is only a sin only by the fact that he is judging me based on his on belief system.  Ironic of course, I mean doesn't your bible say, "judge not lest ye be judged likewise also,"  or have they removed that section?
1151486
"There is something borderline arrogant about Christians saying Atheists do not like the hard work it takes to be a true believer."\n\nPerhaps you dont understand what Christians are saying. Scripture states that our faith has nothing to do with us. It is a free gift from God. No hard work involved.\nI would agree that Christians can be arrogant. And selfish. And just about any other negative label you care to apply. In short, Christians are sinful people. But, people who live in the forgiveness given freely through faith in Christ.
348096
T.S. Eliot said mankind cannot bear very much reality.  Faith is a psychological crutch, the thing that keeps you from going mad every time you remember that you, too, are going to die and there's nothing to be done about it and it's just so massively unfair.  Naturally nobody would ever admit this.  When getting an education and applying logic and reason are so very difficult and frightening, it's "only human" to take the easy way out.\n\nWhich means, come to think of it, that faith isn't really a virtue! Virtue is supposed to be a matter of making hard choices -- otherwise it's valueless.\n\nI suppose the reason why people value faith (despite all of this) is that they have nothing better to put in its place -- after all, they've already given up on reality.  When you've chosen to discard the very best thing going, what the hell else is there except a fantasy.
760513
Usually I prefer not to make generalities, but this question sort of requires one.  I prefer to consider *people* on a case by case basis.\n\nI think Christianity, in and of itself, is a nice way of living a life, no better nor worse than most other paths.\n\nI admit I wish that more Christians were actually "Christ-like" in that they could be more peaceful and less judgmental.\n\nAnd I have problems with bigotry against homosexuals being mandated by a faith.\n\nI also wish some Christians could admit that they believe what they do based on *faith* and not insist it is *fact*.  \n\nHowever, by and large, it's okay with me.  Not that my approval matters!  : )\n\nThanks for asking -- think that's the first time I ever saw it asked.
735708
Religion likes to do thought control of its converts.  That's why it teaches that even thinking about a sin is a sin.  Sin, though, is an outdated concept.  It's much better to think about why something is right or wrong in various circumstances than just being spoon-fed a list of rules.\n\nSatan doesn't exist, neither does God.
57713
Well, as with almost all things religious, there's a secular answer and a sacred one too.  The secular answer is manyfold.  I have a friend who is very very very bigoted towards Christianity, but doesn't seem to have a problem with any other type of faith (Judaism, ancient egyptian mythology, norse mythology, etc).  It could be that those who oppose Christianity are frusterated by how much sense it makes (which is admittadly a VERY egocentric argument).  It could also be that since Christians dominate world politics and generally have the most sway in everything, which breeds jealousy from those of other faiths.  It could also be that those who are pegging Christians as scared, desperate, simple, and judgemental are reffering to certain groups of Christians who are, and then overgeneralizing to encompass all of Christianity.\nThe sacred answer:  Satan breeds jealousy in the hearts of mankind.  The father of lies does what he can to slander the truth and breed opposition to it, because he does not want God's children to succeed.  That is, in my mind, one of the the most important aspects to understand when trying to discover why Christianity is so despised by some.