Religulous and I have agreed to head-to-head on the question "Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false?" (I couldn't get the whole question in the main title)
We have agreed that Religulous will affirm the positive and I affirm the negative.
We've also agreed:
1. To a limit of ten posts each.
2. We avoid appeals to personal experiences as evidence.
3. Stick to one topic.
4. We present evidence to support the premises of our arguments.
5. Religulous will post first.
Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion...
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I believe that rational thinking leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. First let’s take a look at how one becomes a Christian.
Rational thinking must be removed in order to become a “saved� Christian. Christianity is the only organization that, when one joins, the leader of the organization, who is a “spirit�, comes to reside within one’s heart. First of all, to think that a spirit, which there is no evidence of, is literally living inside one’s heart and guiding one’s own spirit, which there is no evidence of, is not rational thinking. Giving up one’s will, and trying to live the will of an unseen being that there is no evidence actually exists is not rational thinking. And what does it mean for Jesus to come live in one’s heart? If anything other than what is in one’s body already comes to live in one’s heart, they will surely die. So we must not be talking literally. Apparently Jesus comes to live in one’s metaphorical heart. So to be a saved Christian, one must pray to an unseen, unproven spirit who is the son of an unseen, unproven god and ask that he come and reside in one’s metaphorical heart in order to guide one’s own unseen, unproven spirit and steer one’s free will to do good. I don’t see one iota of rational thinking so far.
Now that one has become a Christian, they are to pray regularly to the unseen, unproven god and have blind faith that he is listening to every word while listening to everyone else in the world praying at the same time and apparently has a very good reason to never answer back. One must go against all evidence that tells him he his praying to nothing and merely talking to himself and, through blind faith, he must believe that an ancient god is listening. And in times of distress, one is to put one’s problems in god’s hands and forget about them. It seems very irresponsible as well as irrational to me to depend on an unseen, unproven force to solve one’s problems instead of taking charge of one’s own life.
Then there are the stories of the bible. It is irrational to believe that a 600 year old man built a gigantic boat, filled it with approximately 250,000,000 creatures as well as 40 days’ worth of food for the 250,000,000 creatures, that none of the creatures ate each other or died, and that the entire planet was covered with water for over a month while every man woman and child not on the boat drowned. Some will argue that the bible is filled with legends, myths, and metaphors, so I won’t spend any more time on that point.
The reward for living the proper Christian life is eternal life and rewards in heaven, a place which is also unseen and unproven. It is irrational to live a life based on a promise of a reward that one does not receive until one is dead. Again, one must have blind faith, which is irrational by its very definition.
Then there is the resurrection. Christianity relies on the resurrection being true. Without it, the theory of Jesus being the son of god falls apart. This fact can be seen with the Jews. They do not believe Jesus was the son of god and so they reject the entire new testament of the bible. It is irrational to believe that a man died, was dead for three full days, and then came back to life. Rational thinking tells us that after being dead for a few minutes, brain damage occurs and moments later, the body cannot be revived. To believe that a corpse lay in a tomb for three days and then came back to life, perfectly healthy is irrational. To excuse this, one must believe that the man was indeed the son of a god, and that in itself is irrational.
If rational thinking is applied to Christianity, one cannot become a Christian, nor live a true Christian life, nor accept the end reward for living that Christian life. One also cannot accept the divinity of Christ or the divinity of the bible which is supposed to be the word of god.
If you would like to comment on this Head-to-Head, you may do so here.
Rational thinking must be removed in order to become a “saved� Christian. Christianity is the only organization that, when one joins, the leader of the organization, who is a “spirit�, comes to reside within one’s heart. First of all, to think that a spirit, which there is no evidence of, is literally living inside one’s heart and guiding one’s own spirit, which there is no evidence of, is not rational thinking. Giving up one’s will, and trying to live the will of an unseen being that there is no evidence actually exists is not rational thinking. And what does it mean for Jesus to come live in one’s heart? If anything other than what is in one’s body already comes to live in one’s heart, they will surely die. So we must not be talking literally. Apparently Jesus comes to live in one’s metaphorical heart. So to be a saved Christian, one must pray to an unseen, unproven spirit who is the son of an unseen, unproven god and ask that he come and reside in one’s metaphorical heart in order to guide one’s own unseen, unproven spirit and steer one’s free will to do good. I don’t see one iota of rational thinking so far.
Now that one has become a Christian, they are to pray regularly to the unseen, unproven god and have blind faith that he is listening to every word while listening to everyone else in the world praying at the same time and apparently has a very good reason to never answer back. One must go against all evidence that tells him he his praying to nothing and merely talking to himself and, through blind faith, he must believe that an ancient god is listening. And in times of distress, one is to put one’s problems in god’s hands and forget about them. It seems very irresponsible as well as irrational to me to depend on an unseen, unproven force to solve one’s problems instead of taking charge of one’s own life.
Then there are the stories of the bible. It is irrational to believe that a 600 year old man built a gigantic boat, filled it with approximately 250,000,000 creatures as well as 40 days’ worth of food for the 250,000,000 creatures, that none of the creatures ate each other or died, and that the entire planet was covered with water for over a month while every man woman and child not on the boat drowned. Some will argue that the bible is filled with legends, myths, and metaphors, so I won’t spend any more time on that point.
The reward for living the proper Christian life is eternal life and rewards in heaven, a place which is also unseen and unproven. It is irrational to live a life based on a promise of a reward that one does not receive until one is dead. Again, one must have blind faith, which is irrational by its very definition.
Then there is the resurrection. Christianity relies on the resurrection being true. Without it, the theory of Jesus being the son of god falls apart. This fact can be seen with the Jews. They do not believe Jesus was the son of god and so they reject the entire new testament of the bible. It is irrational to believe that a man died, was dead for three full days, and then came back to life. Rational thinking tells us that after being dead for a few minutes, brain damage occurs and moments later, the body cannot be revived. To believe that a corpse lay in a tomb for three days and then came back to life, perfectly healthy is irrational. To excuse this, one must believe that the man was indeed the son of a god, and that in itself is irrational.
If rational thinking is applied to Christianity, one cannot become a Christian, nor live a true Christian life, nor accept the end reward for living that Christian life. One also cannot accept the divinity of Christ or the divinity of the bible which is supposed to be the word of god.
If you would like to comment on this Head-to-Head, you may do so here.
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com
"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com
"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire
-
Goose
Post #3
Goose's post 1 of 10
First, thanks to religulous for participating in this head-to-head. I'll expect his arguments to be at a higher level than the average sceptic as he is a former Christian and cites rational thinking as his reason for departing from the Christian faith. He has seen both sides so to speak. So I am curious to see if his arguments do indeed support the notion that rational thinking leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
Question for debate:"Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false?"
I will affirm the negative: Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
A few issues first.
1)I will begin by defining some terminology:
"Rational," as pertaining to this debate, I will define as:
based on or in accordance with reason or logic
askoxford.com
Following this definition of rational, "rational thinking" must be logical. It must follow an acceptable logical format and conform to the principles of logic and reasoning. I'm confident that religulous and I can agree on this.
For this debate I'll define the concept "Christianity is false" to mean the following propositions concerning the historical man, Jesus, described in the NT are false.
1. Jesus is the Christ.
2. Jesus is the Son of God.
3. Jesus died on the cross.
4. Jesus rose from the dead.
5. Sincere faith placed in this Jesus will save.
Conversely, to say "Christianity is true" would mean the above five propositions are true.
If religulous has any difficulties with my definition of "Christianity is false" or "Christianity is true" he should express them now.
2) Though I don't personally hold to all of the following I will for the sake of argument, to avoid rabbit trails, and make it more of a challenge for me, concede the following:
1. Mark was the first gospel written no earlier than 70AD.
2. The remaining gospels were written some time between 70AD and 100AD.
3. The gospels are anonymous.
4. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for some of their gospels.
5. The Bible contains some errors in secondary details and is errant.
6. The Bible is not the Word of God. It is a merely a collection of ancient writings not to be given any special reverence.
I trust religulous will agree to these. If he does not I'd like him to say so and state why he does not.
On to the core of the debate.
Religulous will need to supply a valid argument that concludes Christianity is false to affirm the positive proposition: "Rational thinking does lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false"
If he does then the burden will fall on me to show his argument to be unsound, if it is. By doing this I will affirm the negative proposition: Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
This would be enough to "win" the debate. But I think that is a bit of a cop-out on my part. So I will, as the debate progresses, go further than this and aslo affirm the position that Rational thinking does lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
I'll assist religulous here. I would like to know if religulous agrees the following argument (A) is valid. If not why not.
Argument (A)
1. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is useless and Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:14,17)
2. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
3. Therefore, our faith is useless and Christianity is false (via Modus Ponens).
(Where useless means empty or not able to save.)
Argument (A). Valid? Yes or no? If not why not?
First, thanks to religulous for participating in this head-to-head. I'll expect his arguments to be at a higher level than the average sceptic as he is a former Christian and cites rational thinking as his reason for departing from the Christian faith. He has seen both sides so to speak. So I am curious to see if his arguments do indeed support the notion that rational thinking leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
Religulous has failed, so far, to present a valid argument that falsifies Christianity. Rather reasons are given to justify one's non-belief. These are two different concepts as we will see.religulous wrote:I believe that rational thinking leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. First let’s take a look at how one becomes a Christian.
This seems to be equivocating "rational thinking" with the presupposition of naturalism. Or at least the idea that for a proposition to be rational we need empirical evidence to support that proposition. I'd like to clarify that this is in fact what religulous means before I comment further.religulous wrote:...Giving up one’s will, and trying to live the will of an unseen being that there is no evidence actually exists is not rational thinking...
At best, even if your evaluation were correct, this would be an argument against Biblical inerrancy, not an argument that shows Christianity to be false.religulous wrote:Then there are the stories of the bible. It is irrational to believe that a 600 year old man built a gigantic boat, filled it with approximately 250,000,000 creatures as well as 40 days’ worth of food for the 250,000,000 creatures, that none of the creatures ate each other or died, and that the entire planet was covered with water for over a month while every man woman and child not on the boat drowned.
This is probably going to be the crux of our debate - that is our definition of rational. I'll get to that.religulous wrote:The reward for living the proper Christian life is eternal life and rewards in heaven, a place which is also unseen and unproven. It is irrational to live a life based on a promise of a reward that one does not receive until one is dead. Again, one must have blind faith, which is irrational by its very definition.
On this we can agree. This will lead into my opening.religulous wrote:Then there is the resurrection. Christianity relies on the resurrection being true. Without it, the theory of Jesus being the son of god falls apart.
Question for debate:"Does rational thinking lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false?"
I will affirm the negative: Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
A few issues first.
1)I will begin by defining some terminology:
"Rational," as pertaining to this debate, I will define as:
based on or in accordance with reason or logic
askoxford.com
Following this definition of rational, "rational thinking" must be logical. It must follow an acceptable logical format and conform to the principles of logic and reasoning. I'm confident that religulous and I can agree on this.
For this debate I'll define the concept "Christianity is false" to mean the following propositions concerning the historical man, Jesus, described in the NT are false.
1. Jesus is the Christ.
2. Jesus is the Son of God.
3. Jesus died on the cross.
4. Jesus rose from the dead.
5. Sincere faith placed in this Jesus will save.
Conversely, to say "Christianity is true" would mean the above five propositions are true.
If religulous has any difficulties with my definition of "Christianity is false" or "Christianity is true" he should express them now.
2) Though I don't personally hold to all of the following I will for the sake of argument, to avoid rabbit trails, and make it more of a challenge for me, concede the following:
1. Mark was the first gospel written no earlier than 70AD.
2. The remaining gospels were written some time between 70AD and 100AD.
3. The gospels are anonymous.
4. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for some of their gospels.
5. The Bible contains some errors in secondary details and is errant.
6. The Bible is not the Word of God. It is a merely a collection of ancient writings not to be given any special reverence.
I trust religulous will agree to these. If he does not I'd like him to say so and state why he does not.
On to the core of the debate.
Religulous will need to supply a valid argument that concludes Christianity is false to affirm the positive proposition: "Rational thinking does lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false"
If he does then the burden will fall on me to show his argument to be unsound, if it is. By doing this I will affirm the negative proposition: Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
This would be enough to "win" the debate. But I think that is a bit of a cop-out on my part. So I will, as the debate progresses, go further than this and aslo affirm the position that Rational thinking does lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
I'll assist religulous here. I would like to know if religulous agrees the following argument (A) is valid. If not why not.
Argument (A)
1. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is useless and Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:14,17)
2. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
3. Therefore, our faith is useless and Christianity is false (via Modus Ponens).
(Where useless means empty or not able to save.)
Argument (A). Valid? Yes or no? If not why not?
Post #4
I agree with the definition of logic.
I agree with the definitions concerning Christianity being true of false.
I agree with the details you have stated concerning the bible.
Argument A appears to be valid.
We have defined “rational thinking� as it must be logical. It must follow an acceptable logical format and conform to the principles of logic and reasoning.
By this definition, any belief in supernatural entities is irrational, without testable, tangible proof. We have no evidence for miracles, ethereal realms, spiritual souls, etc. Supernaturalism defies the laws of logic and reasoning (the dead cannot be brought back to life after several days, seas cannot be parted with the wave of a staff, snakes and bushes cannot speak, fish and bread to feed thousands cannot be pulled from a single basket, man cannot walk on water, etc). In this sense, rational thinking does lead us to the conclusion that Christianity is false, because of its dependence on supernatural occurrence and existence.
If you concede that the bible is not the word of god and that it is a merely a collection of ancient writings not to be given any special reverence, then it would be illogical to follow it’s traditions and instructions.
The bible is what tells us Jesus was the son of god, that he died and was resurrected, and that faith in him will save. You have conceded that the only account of those facts is unreliable. Therefore it would be illogical to believe that Jesus was the son of god or that he was resurrected or that people can be saved by him without any further evidence. These things are imperative to Christianity being true.
I agree with the definitions concerning Christianity being true of false.
I agree with the details you have stated concerning the bible.
Argument A appears to be valid.
We have defined “rational thinking� as it must be logical. It must follow an acceptable logical format and conform to the principles of logic and reasoning.
By this definition, any belief in supernatural entities is irrational, without testable, tangible proof. We have no evidence for miracles, ethereal realms, spiritual souls, etc. Supernaturalism defies the laws of logic and reasoning (the dead cannot be brought back to life after several days, seas cannot be parted with the wave of a staff, snakes and bushes cannot speak, fish and bread to feed thousands cannot be pulled from a single basket, man cannot walk on water, etc). In this sense, rational thinking does lead us to the conclusion that Christianity is false, because of its dependence on supernatural occurrence and existence.
If you concede that the bible is not the word of god and that it is a merely a collection of ancient writings not to be given any special reverence, then it would be illogical to follow it’s traditions and instructions.
The bible is what tells us Jesus was the son of god, that he died and was resurrected, and that faith in him will save. You have conceded that the only account of those facts is unreliable. Therefore it would be illogical to believe that Jesus was the son of god or that he was resurrected or that people can be saved by him without any further evidence. These things are imperative to Christianity being true.
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com
"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com
"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire
-
Goose
Post #5
Goose's post 2 of 10
based on or in accordance with reason or logic
to
based on or in accordance with scientific naturalism.
Logic is a mechanism. Naturalism is a world view. These are different things.
The argument runs something like:
If the Bible is not the word of God and is errant, then we can't trust anything in it and Christianity is false.
It's a non-sequitur. It doesn't logically follow.
--------
Goose's proposition - Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
Argument (A)
1. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is useless and Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:14,17)
2. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
3. Therefore, our faith is useless and Christianity is false.
Religulous has agreed the above argument is valid.
So,
Let P= Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead
Let Q= our faith is useless
Let R= Christianity is false
Argument (A) can be expressed as:
If P, then (Q & R)
P
Therefore, (Q & R) (Modus Ponens)
Conversely then, the below argument is also valid.
If ~(P), then ~(Q & R)
~(P)
Therefore, ~(Q & R)(Modus Ponens)
It would be expressed as:
Argument (B):
1. If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, then our faith is not useless and Christianity is true.
2. Jesus Christ did rise from the dead.
3. Therefore, our faith is not useless and Christianity is true.
If I establish premise (2) in argument (B) this will simultaneously establish premise (2) in argument (A) as false. This will affirm my proposition in this debate that Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false as Argument (A) will have been shown unsound. By establishing premise (2) in argument (B) I will have also affirmed the proposition Rational thinking does lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
I will put forward the following propositions for comment from religulous before beginning to establish premise (2) in argument (B):
B1. The proposition that it is impossible to return to life after death is false.
B2. There are certain facts, not supernatural claims in-and-of-themselves, that pass a reasonable historical method. The evidence for these facts is at least as good as the evidence for other known historical facts from a similar era and approximate region that are called true historically speaking and generally not doubted. There is no reasonable historical set of criteria that shows these facts as being false without also failing most other ancient history. These facts demand an explanation. The facts for consideration are:
Will religulous agree to B1, B2, B3 as true? If not, please explain why. If religulous requires evidence or further elboration I'll be happy to supply it.
OK, sounds good.religulous wrote:I agree with the definition of logic.
I agree with the definitions concerning Christianity being true of false.
I agree with the details you have stated concerning the bible.
Argument A appears to be valid.
We have agreement to this definition then immediately thereafter comes the following statement:religulous wrote:We have defined “rational thinking� as it must be logical. It must follow an acceptable logical format and conform to the principles of logic and reasoning.
False. In the span of one sentence, the agreed upon definition of "rational" has changed from:religulous wrote:By this definition, any belief in supernatural entities is irrational, without testable, tangible proof.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic
to
based on or in accordance with scientific naturalism.
Logic is a mechanism. Naturalism is a world view. These are different things.
Please cite exactly which laws of logic supernaturalism defies. Again, this appears to equivocate logic with naturalism (or anti-supernaturalism) - as though they are same thing. This is false. The supernatural, by definition, can not be explained by the natural laws we observe, hence the term supernatural. It does not follow that the supernatural is therefore irrational or impossible or defies the laws of logic.religulous wrote:Supernaturalism defies the laws of logic and reasoning (the dead cannot be brought back to life after several days, seas cannot be parted with the wave of a staff, snakes and bushes cannot speak, fish and bread to feed thousands cannot be pulled from a single basket, man cannot walk on water, etc). In this sense, rational thinking does lead us to the conclusion that Christianity is false, because of its dependence on supernatural occurrence and existence.
False. First, I haven't conceded this statement as true. I've conceded for the sake of argument(to avoid turning this into an alleged Bible contradictions thread) because it matters little to whether Christianity is true or false. If the Bible is the word of God and inerrant that is a bonus. I really do not understand the logic behind the thinking the Bible MUST be the word of God and inerrant for Christianity to be true.religulous wrote:If you concede that the bible is not the word of god and that it is a merely a collection of ancient writings not to be given any special reverence, then it would be illogical to follow it’s traditions and instructions.
The argument runs something like:
If the Bible is not the word of God and is errant, then we can't trust anything in it and Christianity is false.
It's a non-sequitur. It doesn't logically follow.
No, you have constructed a strawman argument. I did not concede it was "unreliable." Unreliable is your word. I conceded, for the sake of argument, that it contains some errors in secondary details. If that makes it "unreliable" then virtually every ancient text we extract history from is also "unreliable." This places us in the irrational position of not knowing anything from history with any degree of certainty.religulous wrote:The bible is what tells us Jesus was the son of god, that he died and was resurrected, and that faith in him will save. You have conceded that the only account of those facts is unreliable.
Your argument here seems to be that it is illogical to believe Jesus rose from the dead because the written accounts are not the word of God and may contain some errors in secondary details. If this is your argument then it is also equally illogical to believe that Julius Caesar was assassinated because there might be some errors in the secondary details of the accounts that report his assassination.religulous wrote:Therefore it would be illogical to believe that Jesus was the son of god or that he was resurrected or that people can be saved by him without any further evidence. These things are imperative to Christianity being true.
--------
Goose's proposition - Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false.
Argument (A)
1. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is useless and Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:14,17)
2. Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
3. Therefore, our faith is useless and Christianity is false.
Religulous has agreed the above argument is valid.
So,
Let P= Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead
Let Q= our faith is useless
Let R= Christianity is false
Argument (A) can be expressed as:
If P, then (Q & R)
P
Therefore, (Q & R) (Modus Ponens)
Conversely then, the below argument is also valid.
If ~(P), then ~(Q & R)
~(P)
Therefore, ~(Q & R)(Modus Ponens)
It would be expressed as:
Argument (B):
1. If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, then our faith is not useless and Christianity is true.
2. Jesus Christ did rise from the dead.
3. Therefore, our faith is not useless and Christianity is true.
If I establish premise (2) in argument (B) this will simultaneously establish premise (2) in argument (A) as false. This will affirm my proposition in this debate that Rational thinking does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity is false as Argument (A) will have been shown unsound. By establishing premise (2) in argument (B) I will have also affirmed the proposition Rational thinking does lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
I will put forward the following propositions for comment from religulous before beginning to establish premise (2) in argument (B):
B1. The proposition that it is impossible to return to life after death is false.
B2. There are certain facts, not supernatural claims in-and-of-themselves, that pass a reasonable historical method. The evidence for these facts is at least as good as the evidence for other known historical facts from a similar era and approximate region that are called true historically speaking and generally not doubted. There is no reasonable historical set of criteria that shows these facts as being false without also failing most other ancient history. These facts demand an explanation. The facts for consideration are:
- 1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty.
3. The disciples sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them.
4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church, was transformed because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him.
5. James, brother of Jesus and a sceptic, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem
Will religulous agree to B1, B2, B3 as true? If not, please explain why. If religulous requires evidence or further elboration I'll be happy to supply it.
Post #6
Alright, you're over my head now, man. I can't argue when I don't even understand your side. Apparently I wasn't cut out for this level of debate.
You will never convince me that it is perfectly logical for a snake or bush to talk or for the long since dead to spontaneously pop back to life, good as new, but I will never be able to convince you otherwise either. I concede.
You will never convince me that it is perfectly logical for a snake or bush to talk or for the long since dead to spontaneously pop back to life, good as new, but I will never be able to convince you otherwise either. I concede.
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com
"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com
"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire
