Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

[Rational Atheist]

When evaluating whether the claims of Christianity are true or fictional, it's important to take a step back and think about what is typically seen with regard to true beliefs and false beliefs. And, one of the most important characteristics of true beliefs is the fact that they are often independently discovered by multiple people. For instance, pulmonary circulation was discovered/theorized independently in Egypt by Ibn al Nafis and later in Europe by Michael Servetus and later still William Harvey. Calculus was independently discovered by both Isacc Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, evolution was discovered independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. There are countless other examples of "multiple discoveries" of facts that can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... iscoveries

The point is that rational people, who objectively search for truth, will often independently discover facts about the universe. So if Christianity and the existence of the Christian god is a fact about the universe (and we could apply this argument to any other religion/god as well), then we would expect that sincere theologians around the world dedicated to the search for God would independently discover Jesus Christ/Yahweh/Holy Spirit, and thus become Christians. As a result, we would not expect it to take 1500 years for Christianity to reach North America, for instance. If Christianity is true, then it is an objective fact and should thus be discoverable by anyone searching hard enough for the truth about the universe. So, why don't we see Christianity emerge in North or South America, Africa, or China, prior to the arrival of Christians into these parts of the world? One would expect that if Christianity were an objectively true fact, it would be independently discovered in multiple regions of the world. But, it wasn't. Quite the opposite. Prior to the invention of technologies that allowed world travel and communication, every culture had its own version of God, and its own religion. While some of these gods and religions had slight similarities, none of the matched exactly. This is strong evidence that all of these gods and religions are manmade constructs that only exist in the imaginations of humans.

So, my question for Christians is, if your religion is a fact, why was it never independently discovered by anyone? Bear in mind that not only is Christianity supposed to be an objective fact, the god is supposed to want people to know and worship him, meaning that it should be even MORE LIKELY for Christianity to be independently discovered if it is a fact than scientific and mathematical facts are to be independently discovered.

[JehovahsWitness]

Of course, the big gate there is "IF". It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

THE TALE OF TWO IFs

Can you point to the post where I said that?

I made no claim you did so I am under no obligation to defend any of your strawmen. I asked a question (you can recognise a question by the presence of a question mark "---> ? < ---")

So I take it your point is...** "If"** God doesn't exist you believe things would appear as they do now?

That said, my question arose because of your claim below.

...It looks exactly like [as if / as though] he/she does not exist.

What you communicated - to anyone with critical thinking skills and a knowledge of how conjunctions work, - is that you believe (correct me if I am wrong) that our present reality appears (looks) .... *as If *... God does not exist.

The only way to remove the **if** which is an intrict part of your statement is to explicity state that you know God doesn't exist; do you?



JW

[Goat]

Of course, the big gate there is "IF". It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

THE TALE OF TWO IFs

Can you point to the post where I said that?

I made no claim you did so I am under no obligation to defend any of your strawmen. I asked a question (you can recognise a question by the presence of a quesyion mark "---> ? < ---")

So I take it your point is...** "If"** God doesn't exist you believe things would appear as they do now?

That said, my question arose because of your claim below.

...It looks exactly like [as if / as though] he/she does not exist.

What you communicated - to anyone with critical thinking skills and a knowledge of how conjunctions work, - is that you believe (correct me if I am wrong) that our present reality appears (looks) .... *as If *... God does not exist.

The only way to remove the **if** which is an intrict part of your statement is to explicity state that you know God doesn't exist; do you?



JW

And I am saying there is no evidence for that 'if'.

[JehovahsWitness]

And I am saying there is no evidence for that 'if'.

Then perhaps you should consider the following ....


source : https://bigwords101.com/2017/blog/like- ... a%20clause.

And then re-read what you posted ...

...It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

If you were to correct the grammar mistake in your statement above, what word would likely appear? (CLUE : two letter word starting with *i * ending with *f* )






JW

[Goat]

And I am saying there is no evidence for that 'if'.

Then perhaps you should consider the following ....


source : https://bigwords101.com/2017/blog/like- ... a%20clause.

And then re-read what you posted ...

...It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

If you were to correct the grammar mistake in your statement above, what word would likely appear? (CLUE : two letter word starting with *i * ending with *f* )






JW

Non sequituir. Zero evidence has been provided. Bad reasoning has, but zero evidence.

[brunumb]

And I am saying there is no evidence for that 'if'.

Then perhaps you should consider the following ....


source : https://bigwords101.com/2017/blog/like- ... a%20clause.

And then re-read what you posted ...

...It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

If you were to correct the grammar mistake in your statement above, what word would likely appear? (CLUE : two letter word starting with *i * ending with *f* )

JW

It seems that the debate has descended into correcting the grammar of posters. Given that, it would help if you corrected the numerous spelling errors that litter your posts. Definitions of new words such as 'intric' would also be helpful.

[JehovahsWitness]

And I am saying there is no evidence for that 'if'.

Then perhaps you should consider the following ....


source : https://bigwords101.com/2017/blog/like- ... a%20clause.

And then re-read what you posted ...

...It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

If you were to correct the grammar mistake in your statement above, what word would likely appear? (CLUE : two letter word starting with *i * ending with *f* )






JW

Non sequituir. Zero evidence has been provided. Bad reasoning has, but zero evidence.

Faulty grammar does not a case make. The evidence is there for all fo see, unless you no longer believe in the existence of grammar. If you are going to object to any discourse with supposition, assumption, hypothesis, or theory, you do well firstly to be able to identify what they look like in English and then be ready to be called out every time you, yourself attempt to propose such, with or without strategically placed ellipsis.


Good day to you,



JW

[nobspeople]

And I am saying there is no evidence for that 'if'.

Then perhaps you should consider the following ....


source : https://bigwords101.com/2017/blog/like- ... a%20clause.

And then re-read what you posted ...

...It looks exactly like he/she does not exist.

If you were to correct the grammar mistake in your statement above, what word would likely appear? (CLUE : two letter word starting with *i * ending with *f* )

JW

It seems that the debate has descended into correcting the grammar of posters. Given that, it would help if you corrected the numerous spelling errors that litter your posts. Definitions of new words such as 'intric' would also be helpful.

This is hysterical. People trying to correct the grammar of another when their own grammar alarms even me, and I'm one of the worst at grammar!!
I was tired today but this whole thread had divulged into a cluster that made me smile, ironically.
Thanks y'all!

[1213]

In Judaism, the messiah is supposed to be only a man, not the son of god, nor god. There are a number of task that have to be done by him before he can be considered the Messiah, one of which is having a Temple in Jerusalem, with the torah as it's center. Another is to have the vast majority of Jews live in Israel. Neither of those tasks have been accomplished.

To what are those expectations based on? There was a temple in Jerusalem when Jesus was on earth and by what I know, most of Jews were there also. And actually, there were two temples, because in Bible Jesus is the temple of God, or the cornerstone of that temple, and his disciples are also part of that temple of God.

I think it is also good to know, in the Bible Jesus is a man and there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

…the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

There is no 'salvation' as the Christians describe it, you are responsible for your own actions... so 'savior' for the next world is right out the window in the Jewish conception.

Christians may have claims that are not well based on the Bible and I don’t know what you mean with “'salvation' as the Christians describe it”, but in Bible salvation means basically that sins are declared forgiven. I don’t think forgiveness of sins means that person is not responsible of his own actions, it just means that God can forgive, if person has done wrongly. Is forgiveness not possible in Judaism?

[Clownboat]

The God of the bible is NOT presented as being desirous of providing verifiable evidence for the wicked.

And here we see the division caused from religions. If you are not with us, it's because you are wicked.
Us vs Them. Christians vs the Wicked.

This is cult behavior, to provide something to unite against as a group. When it comes to most religions, that is everyone that does not belong to the group. All it takes is to consider the outsiders as being evil. Why else would they not share in the beliefs afterall? It's not like they can find the religious claims to be questionable, it must be due to their wickedness. (This thinking is ignorant, hateful, tribal and evil IMO. Many religious people that think they are loving seem to be ok with it).

The world would be better off without religions for this reason. We have enough division without adding in make believe reasons to consider another human wicked.

To any religious person that does not think this way, hats off to you. Policing from within (not allowing hate filled retoric) is needed. What god you believe in or not does not make a person wicked or not wicked. This teaching itself is what is wicked and needs to be rebuked from the inside out.

Let's not judge a person due to their character, let's judge them by what god they picked.

My circle of friends would not consider me wicked, but to some Christians, the fact that I no longer hold to the religious views I once had is enough to label me as such. Ask yourself, which is the true wickedness?

Here's another example:
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

These blanket statements are hateful and not good for humanity IMO. You (generic) need somewhere to go when you die? Fine, but do I really have to be wicked in order for you to hold your belief?

[William]

The God of the bible is NOT presented as being desirous of providing verifiable evidence for the wicked.

And here we see the division caused from religions. If you are not with us, it's because you are wicked.
Us vs Them. Christians vs the Wicked.

This is cult behavior, to provide something to unite against as a group. When it comes to most religions, that is everyone that does not belong to the group. All it takes is to consider the outsiders as being evil. Why else would they not share in the beliefs afterall? It's not like they can find the religious claims to be questionable, it must be due to their wickedness. (This thinking is ignorant, hateful, tribal and evil IMO. Many religious people that think they are loving seem to be ok with it).

The world would be better off without religions for this reason. We have enough division without adding in make believe reasons to consider another human wicked.

To any religious person that does not think this way, hats off to you. Policing from within (not allowing hate filled retoric) is needed. What god you believe in or not does not make a person wicked or not wicked. This teaching itself is what is wicked and needs to be rebuked from the inside out.

Let's not judge a person due to their character, let's judge them by what god they picked.

My circle of friends would not consider me wicked, but to some Christians, the fact that I no longer hold to the religious views I once had is enough to label me as such. Ask yourself, which is the true wickedness?

Here's another example:
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

These blanket statements are hateful and not good for humanity IMO. You (generic) need somewhere to go when you die? Fine, but do I really have to be wicked in order for you to hold your belief?

It is the very thing which gives Christianity its power over the minds of others...accuse condemn insist people doubt themselves. A tactic which has proved to fill the ranks and humans are so darn fearful they make easy targets... on this board over the years, I have been accused of being 'heretic' 'of the devil' and most recently 'tripping'...and if that is the best they have in the way of argument, they have nothing of value worth any more than the defense tactics used to defend their horde of superstitious fictitious nonsense.