Response to Christian Claims

[Zzyzx]

.
Many Christian claims and statements are repeated ad nausea – sometimes by new members thinking that they have discovered remarkable arguments and sometimes (often) by established members who make a practice of dragging out old arguments.

In either case a proper response requires some time and energy. I propose that we compile a list of claims and responses that we can use as required (and modify as necessary).

Everyone is encouraged to contribute ideas and responses. Please edit my suggestions.

1) Christian claim: The bible is the word of god.

Response: WHICH bible is “the word of god”? There are hundreds of different versions of “god’s word” (bibles), each of which is promoted by individuals or groups as being the “true version”. An Internet search for “bible versions” yields many results. Perhaps the most concise is “English Bible Translations” which lists over 100 different versions. http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/

Bibles evolved from tales told by Bronze Age storytellers and later churchmen that were written by MAN and were also collected, selected, edited, transcribed, translated, revised, modified and rewritten by MAN.

In addition to the hundred plus English language bibles, there are works in Hebrew and Greek that provide different meanings than their English counterparts. Take your choice. Are they all “the word of god”? If not, which is, and why?


2) Christian claim: It is wise to worship god just in case he is real (known as Pascal’s Wager)

Response: Advising people to worship god “just in case he is real” is foolish advice. Thousands of gods are available for worship. If one wishes to “be sure” all must be worshiped (and some claim exclusive rights – “no other gods”). There isn’t enough time in the day or in a lifetime to worship all the gods to be sure of salvation.

There is no evidence to support the existence of any god or to identify some as "false" and others as "true".


3) Christian claim: It doesn’t cost anything to believe

Response: This is a false statement. The cost of belief includes:

1. Structure one’s life, to some degree (perhaps a great degree), to conform to what religious leaders proclaim.
2. Forgo opportunities disallowed by the chosen sect (some are more restrictive than others). Choice of a mate, for instance, may be dictated or influenced by beliefs.
3. Conform and obey – a conformal and obedient worshiper is an ideal subject, just as s/he is ideal follower for politicians.
4. Devote time, energy and resources to worship practices
5. Practice “magical thinking” in lieu of explaining real world events based on observation and understanding of nature.
6. Set aside reason, experience, intelligence and knowledge of the real world in order to accept incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed) tales by Bronze Age storytellers and churchmen

[Cephus]

What theists here do you think would be willing to debate "The bible is the word of god", Pascal’s Wager, or the "cost of belief"?

What theists here do you think have the desire and the ability to debate those topics at all? A lot of theists who might take those arguments seriously are also the ones who are incapable of debating anything because their methodology is simply making assertions and demanding they're true.

Can you honestly think someone like Easyrider could debate intelligently?

[upallnite]

What theists here do you think would be willing to debate "The bible is the word of god", Pascal’s Wager, or the "cost of belief"?

What theists here do you think have the desire and the ability to debate those topics at all? A lot of theists who might take those arguments seriously are also the ones who are incapable of debating anything because their methodology is simply making assertions and demanding they're true.

Can you honestly think someone like Easyrider could debate intelligently?

Perhaps not, but I do think that a list of threads showing the weakness of theist arguments and reasonable rebuttals would come in handy. If a theist does a poor job of defending those positions then it shows the weakness of the theist argument and hopefully deters others from making a similar claim. If they do a good job then at least we will know what direction to take the debate next time.

[Cephus]

Perhaps not, but I do think that a list of threads showing the weakness of theist arguments and reasonable rebuttals would come in handy. If a theist does a poor job of defending those positions then it shows the weakness of the theist argument and hopefully deters others from making a similar claim. If they do a good job then at least we will know what direction to take the debate next time.

I'm not arguing with you on that at all, I just think that the idea that a "Handy Dandy Christianity Refuter" thread isn't going to convince anyone, it'll just make our job easier to have responses ready made for the arguments at hand.

Of course, having that thread available just makes the theists know what we'll do when they pose one of these ridiculous arguments, so it's a double-edged sword.

[Zzyzx]

.

What theists here do you think would be willing to debate "The bible is the word of god", Pascal’s Wager, or the "cost of belief"?

What theists here do you think have the desire and the ability to debate those topics at all? A lot of theists who might take those arguments seriously are also the ones who are incapable of debating anything because their methodology is simply making assertions and demanding they're true.

Can you honestly think someone like Easyrider could debate intelligently?

I harbor no illusions that the most vocal fundamentalist members can debate intelligently. In fact, the realization that they cannot prompted me to suggest the list of responses. They simply repeat tired arguments based on assertions that cannot be substantiated. Rather than taking time to answer the non-argument, one can reply by simply pasting a reply that was used previously or one that has been prepared for such occasions.

Likewise, I have no illusions that religious fanatics have any interest in hearing opposition viewpoints or learning anything at all. In fact, it is often stated that they KNOW the “truth” and are unwilling to change thinking regardless of what evidence is presented.

Are Non-Theists willing to change ideas regarding supernaturalism? Many seem willing to reconsider IF presented with evidence. They are shown quotations from ancient writings backed up by church dogma and personal opinions – NOT evidence. Fanatics evidently regard ancient tales as convincing evidence – or, more likely, make decisions without reference to evidence or examination for truth.

Obsession based on indoctrination and rigid thinking seems characteristic of religious fundamentalism / fanaticism / fascism. Indoctrination is a terrible thing. A mind is a terrible thing to pour into concrete.

A list of responses might be handy for “soft non-believers” as a reference in presenting arguments against the usual fundamentalist claims, statements and conjectures.

Likewise, "soft believers" might find the "canned" responses have merit when compared to the typical religious dogma. Reading through a list of responses might cause thinking people to question what they have been told since childhood -- and perhaps recognize the merit of reason and evidence as opposed to "faith" and emotion.

Another purpose of the “canned” responses is for use when new fundamentalist members throw out the typical BS thinking that they have come up with a novel and compelling argument. Referring them to “reply #17” might get across the point that what seems new to them is not new at all, but has been addressed many times.

[Cephus]

I harbor no illusions that the most vocal fundamentalist members can debate intelligently. In fact, the realization that they cannot prompted me to suggest the list of responses. They simply repeat tired arguments based on assertions that cannot be substantiated. Rather than taking time to answer the non-argument, one can reply by simply pasting a reply that was used previously or one that has been prepared for such occasions.

The least frustration option for dealing with these people is to put them on ignore and not worry about them. We all know that any attempt at debate is met with more canned, irrational responses and they won't listen to reason. The most extreme versions really aren't worth dealing with at all and the reason most atheists give, trying to show those sitting on the fence how ridiculous fundamentalism is, really doesn't hold water, anyone who is on the fence can see what kind of fools these people make of themselves without our help.

Are Non-Theists willing to change ideas regarding supernaturalism?

Most are. I know I am.

Many seem willing to reconsider IF presented with evidence. They are shown quotations from ancient writings backed up by church dogma and personal opinions – NOT evidence. Fanatics evidently regard ancient tales as convincing evidence – or, more likely, make decisions without reference to evidence or examination for truth.

It's not necessarily regarded as evidence, fanatics aren't interested in evidence, they just believe what they believe and demand that anything they believe must be right. Nothing that anyone has to say is going to change that.

Another purpose of the “canned” responses is for use when new fundamentalist members throw out the typical BS thinking that they have come up with a novel and compelling argument. Referring them to “reply #17” might get across the point that what seems new to them is not new at all, but has been addressed many times.

I suppose that part is fine, but doesn't that make us look just as bad as they are? They have their canned claims, we have our canned responses. After a while, the forums turn into tossing numbers back and forth. Is that really what we want?

[Cathar1950]

I suppose that part is fine, but doesn't that make us look just as bad as they are? They have their canned claims, we have our canned responses. After a while, the forums turn into tossing numbers back and forth. Is that really what we want?

It does sound fun or at least funny.
They should list all theirs, I guess they do, and we could just toss numbers at each other.
I would rather play dodge ball but I want a foce field around be as I bruse easy and don't move as fast as I use to.