Believing in Christianity: A Major Life Decision?

[Divine Insight]

In another thread a Christian attempted to belittle me for having once believed in the religion only to discover later than the religion is false. His implication was that if I would change my mind concerning major life decisions like this then I can't be very credible. (the old: Discredit your debate opponent tactic)

So I've decided to put the question to Christians:

1. Does Christianity dictate your major life decisions?

2. And if so, how would you choose to live differently if you weren't a Christian?

Debate Questions:

If a Christian claims that they would live their life differently if they weren't a Christian, doesn't this imply that they aren't being true to themselves when living life as a Christian?

Also, wouldn't the manner they would choose to live their lives, if not a Christian, reveal who they truly are at the core of their character?

[Realworldjack]

You have yet to demonstrate how my simply repeating what they have to say for themselves would be an, "attempt to discredit them"?

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

For that matter where did I ever say that I had been convinced by evidence?

You bear false witness against them by proclaiming that they had said things they never said. And then accuse them of having been mistaken.

That's an "attempt to discredit them" by claiming that they had said things that they never even said.

You're accusations against them are false.

You are NOT just repeating what they had said for themselves. You are creating a false narrative. You are misrepresenting their position and bearing false witness against them by claiming that they said things they never said.

So there's nothing here to address. All that is required is for you to stop making false claims about what other people supposedly said when in fact they never said those things.

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

Where did I ever say, "they said, they were convinced by the facts, and evidence"? I did not! What I said was, "they claim to have been convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence in support of what they were once convinced of". The question here would be, if there are those who can become convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support, what would cause us to believe the thinking would be any better?

How in the world, would that translate into, "they said they were convinced by the facts, and evidence"?

They could not possibly claim to have been convinced by facts, and evidence, that they claim does not exist.

So then, as we can see, you continue to make arguments I have never made, and attempt to tear down, arguments of your own making.

So let us stay right here, and not move on to anything else. I am not in any way claiming they have been, are were convinced by evidence. Rather, THEY (not me) claim to have been convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence in support of what they claim be convinced of, which demonstrates one who can be convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

[Divine Insight]

You have yet to demonstrate how my simply repeating what they have to say for themselves would be an, "attempt to discredit them"?

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

For that matter where did I ever say that I had been convinced by evidence?

You bear false witness against them by proclaiming that they had said things they never said. And then accuse them of having been mistaken.

That's an "attempt to discredit them" by claiming that they had said things that they never even said.

You're accusations against them are false.

You are NOT just repeating what they had said for themselves. You are creating a false narrative. You are misrepresenting their position and bearing false witness against them by claiming that they said things they never said.

So there's nothing here to address. All that is required is for you to stop making false claims about what other people supposedly said when in fact they never said those things.

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

Where did I ever say, "they said, they were convinced by the facts, and evidence"? I did not! What I said was, "they claim to have been convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence in support of what they were once convinced of". The question here would be, if there are those who can become convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support, what would cause us to believe the thinking would be any better?

Have you not been paying attention to what has already been stated?

They were convinced by their own parents, pastors and peers, just like 99.99999% of all Christians throughout the world.

There is no compelling evidence to support the religion. All that exists are theists who believe in it on faith, or those few who have wrongfully convinced themselves that there is sufficient evidence to support the theology when in fact there isn't.

Even the Apostle Paul tells lies to people in the Bible. This is not to accuse Paul of being an intentional liar. He may very well believed the things he preached, but we can clearly see that the things he preached are simply not true.

Romans 1:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Look at verse 18. You know there's no truth in that. Where has any wrath of God been "revealed from heaven" against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

You know that's false unless you're going to pretend that all manner of ungodliness and unrighteous men have been dealt with by God in a way that has been "revealed from heaven".

So the apostle Paul himself is preaching clearly false information.

Even verses 19 and 20 are absolute nonsense. Where is there anything in our universe that has revealed itself as having been created by any designing God?

These verses represent nothing more than Paul's subjective opinions. The fact that he claims that those who don't not agree with his opinions are "without excuse" is also a lie, unless you're willing to accept that too as being nothing more than Paul's personal misguided opinion.

But he's not claiming to be preaching his personal subjective opinions. Instead he's preaching as if what he's saying are proven truths. And that, my friend is not true.

To the contrary, to just assume that because complex things exist they must have been created is actually a quite uninformed and ignorant view.

Who knows? It may be possible that Paul himself was actually quite intelligent and had he lived until today he would have since changed his mind based on today's knowledge of the world.

You need to keep in mind that in Paul's day, superstitious beliefs ruled the world. He had no clue how old the world truly is, or that humans only showed up very recently, or that animals had been evolving for billions of years.

He had absolutely no clue about anything. Yet he's proclaiming that other people are "without excuse" if they don't jump to the same unwarranted conclusions that he jumped to. That basically amounts to nothing short of subjective arrogance on Paul's part.

So even the authors of the Bible cannot tell the truth as we clearly see in the writings of Paul.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for Christianity. It's a religious theology that must be accepted based on pure faith. If you have convinced yourself that there is sufficient evidence to believe it, then I suggest it's time to re-exam that conclusion with a fine-tooth comb.

[Realworldjack]

You have yet to demonstrate how my simply repeating what they have to say for themselves would be an, "attempt to discredit them"?

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

For that matter where did I ever say that I had been convinced by evidence?

You bear false witness against them by proclaiming that they had said things they never said. And then accuse them of having been mistaken.

That's an "attempt to discredit them" by claiming that they had said things that they never even said.

You're accusations against them are false.

You are NOT just repeating what they had said for themselves. You are creating a false narrative. You are misrepresenting their position and bearing false witness against them by claiming that they said things they never said.

So there's nothing here to address. All that is required is for you to stop making false claims about what other people supposedly said when in fact they never said those things.

Where did they ever say that they had been convinced by evidence?

Where did I ever say, "they said, they were convinced by the facts, and evidence"? I did not! What I said was, "they claim to have been convinced of something, they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence in support of what they were once convinced of". The question here would be, if there are those who can become convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support, what would cause us to believe the thinking would be any better?

Have you not been paying attention to what has already been stated?

They were convinced by their own parents, pastors and peers, just like 99.99999% of all Christians throughout the world.

There is no compelling evidence to support the religion. All that exists are theists who believe in it on faith, or those few who have wrongfully convinced themselves that there is sufficient evidence to support the theology when in fact there isn't.

Even the Apostle Paul tells lies to people in the Bible. This is not to accuse Paul of being an intentional liar. He may very well believed the things he preached, but we can clearly see that the things he preached are simply not true.

Romans 1:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Look at verse 18. You know there's no truth in that. Where has any wrath of God been "revealed from heaven" against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

You know that's false unless you're going to pretend that all manner of ungodliness and unrighteous men have been dealt with by God in a way that has been "revealed from heaven".

So the apostle Paul himself is preaching clearly false information.

Even verses 19 and 20 are absolute nonsense. Where is there anything in our universe that has revealed itself as having been created by any designing God?

These verses represent nothing more than Paul's subjective opinions. The fact that he claims that those who don't not agree with his opinions are "without excuse" is also a lie, unless you're willing to accept that too as being nothing more than Paul's personal misguided opinion.

But he's not claiming to be preaching his personal subjective opinions. Instead he's preaching as if what he's saying are proven truths. And that, my friend is not true.

To the contrary, to just assume that because complex things exist they must have been created is actually a quite uninformed and ignorant view.

Who knows? It may be possible that Paul himself was actually quite intelligent and had he lived until today he would have since changed his mind based on today's knowledge of the world.

You need to keep in mind that in Paul's day, superstitious beliefs ruled the world. He had no clue how old the world truly is, or that humans only showed up very recently, or that animals had been evolving for billions of years.

He had absolutely no clue about anything. Yet he's proclaiming that other people are "without excuse" if they don't jump to the same unwarranted conclusions that he jumped to. That basically amounts to nothing short of subjective arrogance on Paul's part.

So even the authors of the Bible cannot tell the truth as we clearly see in the writings of Paul.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence for Christianity. It's a religious theology that must be accepted based on pure faith. If you have convinced yourself that there is sufficient evidence to believe it, then I suggest it's time to re-exam that conclusion with a fine-tooth comb.

GOOD GRIEF! Are you simply going to ignore the fact that you have wrongly accused me of something I did not say, and just move on to something else?

Have you not been paying attention to what has already been stated?

I have been "paying attention" but apparently you either have not, or for some reason cannot, or you intentionally accuse others of saying things they have not, because you cannot deal with what is actually said?

As we can clearly see, you have accused me of saying something that I have never said, and when I bring this to your attention, you ignore this fact, and continue on by simply sharing your opinion of the words of Paul?

The point is, if one cannot keep up, or understand what another has been saying, and acknowledge their error when they have been corrected, then I would say that this would be a pretty good indication that they more than likely cannot keep up with what the Biblical record is saying, or they simply just cannot understand it correctly, or they will intentionally attempt to make it say something that it does not say, just like they have clearly demonstrated they will do.

So then, you ignore the fact that you have accused me of something that I have never said, and then go on to say that, "These verses represent nothing more than Paul's subjective opinions" all the while simply sharing with us, your "subjective opinion".

I really do not see a whole lot of use, in continuing to converse with one who has clearly demonstrated they either cannot keep up, or cannot understand what another is saying, or is intentionally accusing others of saying something they have not, because this sort of person will simply ignore their error, and continue on to the next thing, in order to avoid having to deal with their error.

Moreover, I have continued to have to correct you, because you have continued to accuse me of saying things I have not, and you have yet to explain exactly how it would be an insult on my part, to simply repeat what others say of themselves, and go on to ask the NATURAL questions that would arise? Such as when you say,

They were convinced by their own parents, pastors and peers

Okay, but this would clearly demonstrate one who can become convinced of something, simply on the word of others, with no facts, and evidence in support. So then, what would cause us to believe that the thinking process would be any better now?

[Divine Insight]

They were convinced by their own parents, pastors and peers

Okay, but this would clearly demonstrate one who can become convinced of something, simply on the word of others, with no facts, and evidence in support. So then, what would cause us to believe that the thinking process would be any better now?

Well, you need to take into consideration the context.

I was a naive child who had placed my trust in parents and elders. Only to discover that they were lying.

So my thinking was always sound. It was simply misplaced. When I finally matured to the point where I could do my own research I discovered that I had been lied to.

So what's wrong with that? My thinking was sound all along.

I was told by people I naively trusted that the Bible contains answers to all our questions. That turned out to be a lie.

So I discovered that I had been lied to. Why should that cause anyone to question my thinking?

Let's take a look at your situation now:

You claim to be convinced by facts and evidence that Christianity is true. Something that even the bulk of Christian clergy wouldn't be naive enough to claim.

Can you produce these facts and evidence that Christianity is true?

No you can't.

So why should anyone bother to give your claims any credibility? You claim to have facts and evidence that you can't even produce.

We all know that you cannot produce these things because if you could then historians and scientists would have no choice but to accept the facts and evidence that you produce. Clearly no such facts or evidence exists.

So that much is a given.

You are claiming that things exists which everyone knows does not exist.

If Christians could produce facts and evidence for Christianity there wouldn't even be any need to Christian Apologetics. Instead of continually making up excuses for why the religion doesn't make any sense, they could instead just produce the facts and evidence that proves that it's true.

You and I (and everyone else on these forums) know that there are no facts and evidence to prove that Christianity is true.

So why should anyone give credibility to anyone who claims that such facts and evidence exist when we all know they don't?

In fact, we actually have facts and evidence that proves that Christianity is indeed false. Just the opposite of what you claim.

We know that the story of Adam and Eve is necessarily a false story that was clearly just fabricated by men. Death, disease, and thorny plants existed long before humans ever appeared on planet earth. Therefore the very foundation of Biblical fantasy has already been proven by natural reality to be a false narrative.

The blame for an imperfect earth cannot be pinned onto humans. That accusation is clearly a fictitious fantasy. So the Bible is already dead by the first few chapters of the novel. It can be nothing more than a work of fiction.

That's what facts and evidence reveal.

You have chosen to defend an indefensible mythology. That's where the facts and evidence lead. There was no Great Flood that killed off humans. The Biblical stories are pure fiction. Those are the facts.

Why should anyone believe that you are capable of sound thinking when you claim to have been convinced by facts and evidence that aren't compelling to anyone else?

This places you as the outlier not them.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 74 by Divine Insight]

Well again, you completely ignore the fact that you have accused me of saying something that I never said.

Well, you need to take into consideration the context.

I was a naive child who had placed my trust in parents and elders. Only to discover that they were lying.

So my thinking was always sound. It was simply misplaced. When I finally matured to the point where I could do my own research I discovered that I had been lied to.

So what's wrong with that? My thinking was sound all along.

I was told by people I naively trusted that the Bible contains answers to all our questions. That turned out to be a lie.

So I discovered that I had been lied to. Why should that cause anyone to question my thinking?

And we have already agreed that what I am saying would not apply to you. However, there are those here on this site who claim they carried this belief well into adulthood, and, or became a Christian as an adult, and go on to tell us they truly believed, and were convinced Christianity was true, only now to insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were convinced of, and you have attempted to defend these folks, and now you want to go back to talking about yourself again.

We cannot get around the fact that there are indeed folks who make this claim, and I am pointing out that they are admitting to being totally convinced of something there would be no facts, and evidence to support, which demonstrates there could not possibly have been a whole lot of thinking involved, and the question remains, "what would cause us to believe, the thinking would be any better now"?

Can you produce these facts and evidence that Christianity is true?

And here is why it is impossible to have a discussion with you, because I have never said, "there would be facts, and evidence that Christianity IS true". Rather, what I have said was, "there are facts, and evidence to support the claims", which means there would be reasons to believe the claims.

This is a far cry from claiming "there are facts, and evidence, that Christianity IS true", and you again demonstrate that you cannot keep up with the conversation, or you intentionally make your own arguments, which I have never made, which is the reason there is really no reason to attempt to address anything else you have to say, because you demonstrate that you have difficulty.

However, I will point out that while I cannot produce facts, and evidence that "Christianity IS true", you have not, and cannot produce any facts, and evidence that it IS false.

What we can say is, whether Christianity be true, or false, it has indeed been successful in consuming your life for years.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 62 by Realworldjack]

I am taking that into consideration, but I am also taking into consideration that these folks grow into adults with minds of their own, and you act as if the parents have some sort of control over their minds as an adult?

No, I am not. What I am saying is that young and impressionable minds are the most likely to accept information uncritically. When children are constantly fed beliefs as if they are facts then their minds and their worldviews will become shaped accordingly. When five year olds wave placards condemning gays, or eight year olds walk down the aisle to dedicate their life to Jesus, how much of what is instilled in their brains came from rational or reasoned evaluation of what they were taught? When their whole life has been immersed in the trappings of their religion, it will take something significant to get their adult brains to think outside the box.

Next, when you use the word, "indoctrination" exactly what do you mean? Do you have in mind simply the teaching of doctrine? Would it be to teach folks not to think critically about what they have been taught? Would it be something like brainwashing?

Exactly the opposite. Indoctrination is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. That is why it is most successful with the young or those who are vulnerable due to particular personal circumstances. The geographical distribution of religious beliefs is evidence of the fact that religious beliefs are propagated in communities through indoctrination and subsequently maintained through cultural pressures such as fear of rejection or, in extreme cases, death.

I do not see it as being "brave" at all, but rather see it as being common sense not to simply take the word of others, no matter what the cost. I see it as being weak minded, not to question everything you were taught, no matter who has done the teaching, when one becomes of age.

It most certainly is brave. Loss of family, friends, community and support is not something anyone can simply shrug off as the 'cost' of losing ones faith. Most religions actually discourage questioning what has been taught when it comes to religious beliefs. It can most readily be observed in extremist sects and cults where books, television, communication with non-believers etc. are all banned. It is more likely that any time questioning what has been taught is encouraged is when it pertains to science or history where the subject matter clearly exposes holes in the foundation of the believer's religion.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 62 by Realworldjack]

I am taking that into consideration, but I am also taking into consideration that these folks grow into adults with minds of their own, and you act as if the parents have some sort of control over their minds as an adult?

No, I am not. What I am saying is that young and impressionable minds are the most likely to accept information uncritically. When children are constantly fed beliefs as if they are facts then their minds and their worldviews will become shaped accordingly. When five year olds wave placards condemning gays, or eight year olds walk down the aisle to dedicate their life to Jesus, how much of what is instilled in their brains came from rational or reasoned evaluation of what they were taught? When their whole life has been immersed in the trappings of their religion, it will take something significant to get their adult brains to think outside the box.

Next, when you use the word, "indoctrination" exactly what do you mean? Do you have in mind simply the teaching of doctrine? Would it be to teach folks not to think critically about what they have been taught? Would it be something like brainwashing?

Exactly the opposite. Indoctrination is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. That is why it is most successful with the young or those who are vulnerable due to particular personal circumstances. The geographical distribution of religious beliefs is evidence of the fact that religious beliefs are propagated in communities through indoctrination and subsequently maintained through cultural pressures such as fear of rejection or, in extreme cases, death.

I do not see it as being "brave" at all, but rather see it as being common sense not to simply take the word of others, no matter what the cost. I see it as being weak minded, not to question everything you were taught, no matter who has done the teaching, when one becomes of age.

It most certainly is brave. Loss of family, friends, community and support is not something anyone can simply shrug off as the 'cost' of losing ones faith. Most religions actually discourage questioning what has been taught when it comes to religious beliefs. It can most readily be observed in extremist sects and cults where books, television, communication with non-believers etc. are all banned. It is more likely that any time questioning what has been taught is encouraged is when it pertains to science or history where the subject matter clearly exposes holes in the foundation of the believer's religion.

You continue to talk about children, and even use the age of 5 years old here, and we all know that children trust their parents at that age, and even older, so no one is talking about that at all.

Rather, we are talking about, as one matures in age, they may still love, and respect their parents, but most all of us have disagreements with our parents, because we have different beliefs, and opinions concerning different things.

The point is, I can understand one who maybe continues to go to Church as an adult simply to pacify their parents, but not really being all that convinced, and simply doing enough to keep the parents happy.

But this is not what we are talking about. Rather, we are talking about those who claim to have been completely convinced Christianity was true, and to demonstrate just how convinced they were, they share with us all the ways in which this belief impacted their daily lives.

Therefore, we are talking about those who continued to carry with them, what they were taught as a child, way into their adult life, and, or those who admit to converting to Christianity as an adult, who now want to tell us, they somehow became convinced something would be true, that there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

I can see no way in which to make this any better? Because, what this means is, we have those who can be convinced of something being a fact, simply on the word of others, which I think we can all agree would be, weak minded, and the natural question that would arise is, "what would cause us to believe the thinking is any better now"?

You also talk about "indoctrination" as "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically". Well, I was brought up in a Christian home, in which my father was an ordained minister. My earliest memories were in a Church, and we were there every time the doors were open, and I was taught the Biblical stories from birth. Therefore, as you can imagine, my folks would be very upset if I were to reject the Christianity that I was brought up in.

However, when I became of age, (around the age of 19) I understood completely that I was not convinced Christianity was true, and since I am not the type of person to fake anything, I simply did not attend Church, and when I was asked, I responded by saying, "I am simply not interested" which was the exact truth.

I did not become interested, until I began to have children, and my folks wanted to come by and take them to Church. In other words, I really did not want to be interested, but at this point, I have no choice, because I begin to understand that my children are going to be exposed to it, one way, or the other, so I have to be prepared to give them some sort of answer, because my children were at stake.

So then, I set out to study these things, and in the end, although I became convinced Christianity was true, I also rejected much of what I was taught as a child, as being reckless, to the point I can no longer worship with my mom, dad, and many of my life long friends.

The point is, I completely understand what it means to be separated from family, and friends. What I cannot understand is, one who is willing to be convinced of something, simply because of the way in which they were brought up?

No matter how you slice this, we are dealing with those who for whatever reason, were convinced something to be true, that they now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were convinced of, which clearly demonstrates extremely weak minded thinking, of which I think these folks admit to, and again the natural question that would arise is, "what would cause us to believe the thinking is any better now, then when there were convinced of something, that they now insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support?

Simply telling us HOW you became convinced of something there would be no facts, and evidence in support of what you were once convinced of, does not in any way tell us, how, or why, we should be convinced the thinking is any better now. Because the fact of the matter is, if it did not take a whole lot of thinking to talk one into believing, then it may not take a whole lot of thinking, to talk them out. Easy in, easy out.

Now, you can call it "brave" if you want, when one actually refuses to believe something that there would be no facts, and evidence to support, but I simply call it, "common sense".

[Divine Insight]

However, I will point out that while I cannot produce facts, and evidence that "Christianity IS true", you have not, and cannot produce any facts, and evidence that it IS false.

I've already done that. You're just in denial.

We know it's a fact that death, disease and thorns growing on plants existed long before humans ever appeared on planet earth.

This totally contradicts the Biblical fables.

We know that there was never any "Great Flood" that killed off all but a handful of humans since humans have evolved from early primates.

That's a well-established fact of scientific knowledge.

We also know that things Jesus prophesied never came to pass.

He prophesied that others would come who would do far greater works then he. But there has never been any rumors about people having done greater works than Jesus. In fact, as ironic as it is, even Christian theologians would never stand for anyone have greater powers than Jesus. Even though Jesus himself said that they would.

Jesus promised that he will do anything we ask in his name. But that has never happened. Mother Teresa was probably the best example of Christ's false prophesies. She believed in him and trusted him completely only to finally come to her senses.

You'd probably have something negative to say about her too. But how long should a person continue to believe in lies before they finally wake up?

The Bible has Jesus prophesying that anyone who believes in him will be able to lay their hands on the sick and heal them.

Well, either Jesus was a liar, or nobody actually believes in him.

Can you lay your hands on the sick and heal them?

I didn't think so.

So there you go. The claims of the Bible proven to be false.

What more proof do you need?

[Realworldjack]

However, I will point out that while I cannot produce facts, and evidence that "Christianity IS true", you have not, and cannot produce any facts, and evidence that it IS false.

I've already done that. You're just in denial.

We know it's a fact that death, disease and thorns growing on plants existed long before humans ever appeared on planet earth.

This totally contradicts the Biblical fables.

We know that there was never any "Great Flood" that killed off all but a handful of humans since humans have evolved from early primates.

That's a well-established fact of scientific knowledge.

We also know that things Jesus prophesied never came to pass.

He prophesied that others would come who would do far greater works then he. But there has never been any rumors about people having done greater works than Jesus. In fact, as ironic as it is, even Christian theologians would never stand for anyone have greater powers than Jesus. Even though Jesus himself said that they would.

Jesus promised that he will do anything we ask in his name. But that has never happened. Mother Teresa was probably the best example of Christ's false prophesies. She believed in him and trusted him completely only to finally come to her senses.

You'd probably have something negative to say about her too. But how long should a person continue to believe in lies before they finally wake up?

The Bible has Jesus prophesying that anyone who believes in him will be able to lay their hands on the sick and heal them.

Well, either Jesus was a liar, or nobody actually believes in him.

Can you lay your hands on the sick and heal them?

I didn't think so.

So there you go. The claims of the Bible proven to be false.

What more proof do you need?

Okay, you again to fail to acknowledge that you have accused me of saying something I have never said, although I continue to bring this fact up? This sort of demonstrates the person I am dealing with. Either you are guilty of this? Or you can defend yourself, and you have done neither.

Next, you demonstrate that you continue to be influenced by the reckless theology you were exposed to as a child, and you bring this reckless theology along with you now, which demonstrates that you cannot think past the theology you were exposed to as a child.

I have no problem with your unbelief. The problem comes in, when you insist there would be no reason to believe, when you can in no way demonstrate this to be the case, outside your own subjective opinion.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 79 by Realworldjack]

You asked for proof that the Bible and Christianity are false.

I gave you the irrefutable proof.

But instead of acknowledging this all you can do is continue to make personal accusations?

Clearly you've been defeated.

There's nothing more to see here.

Christianity has been shown to be false. And the theist remains in denial hiding behind personal accusations instead of addressing the facts.

By the way, thanks for finally confessing that you don't have facts and evidence to back up Christianity or its claims.