Arguments against Christianity

[liamconnor]

I am beginning to think that most arguments against Christianity on this site are really made against a specific brand of Christianity.

The impression would be like meeting a foreigner who disliked America, but the more you inquired into this dislike, you found out what the foreigner disliked was Republicans (or a substitute).

For instance: I am constantly asked to prove aspects of the O.T. before arguing for aspects of the New! As if a Roman historian had to prove that Romulus and Remus existed before he can have a serious conversation about Julius Caesar!

Or, he has to show that every discrepancy about Jesus is resolvable, otherwise, anything he says about Jesus is automatically false.

What?! Must a historian of ancient Rome show that every historical statement made from every ancient historian of Rome is 100% compatible before studying them!!!!!

Has it not become obvious, that skeptics here have presupposed a very specific Christian opponent in their debates, and a type that is not even prevalent on this forum?

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics on this site WANT to presuppose a very specific Christian opponent, because the other opponents, the ones that actually frequent this site, are far more difficult to debate?

Is it not now obvious, that skeptics, when presented with basic historical arguments, are saying, "Woooo....your'e supposed to be arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture!" And when we don't, when we defend our case upon the contents of the bible as any historical data, say Josephus or Plutarch, they cry "Unfair; that makes this a far more difficult problem than we are used to?"


Just a thought.

[Divine Insight]

In other words, I know my belief. (since I’m a believer).

Mark 16:
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Can you drink any deadly thing and not be harmed by it?

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

If you can't do these things then according to words attributed to Jesus in the Christian New Testament you can't be a "believer". You might claim to be a believer, but according to words attributed to Jesus you must be kidding yourself if you cannot fulfill the prophesy that the Christ himself has spoken.

So telling me that you are a "believer" is not impressive. You need to demonstrate that you can do the things that the Christ said you would be able to do if you are indeed a believer.

So until you can verify these things then telling me that you are a believer amounts to nothing more than empty words.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 30 by Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 28 by Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 24 by RonE]

Good afternoon RonE!! I hope you are doing great today!

What exactly is scientific proof? I mean, people say that all the time on this forum, but what does it actually mean? Science is based on data, this data is obtained through observation and experiment. What observations or experiments can we make to prove God exists?

Yes, that is a dilemma, and is completely dependent upon what claims you are making about your god. Generically I'd say scientific proof/evidence is that which is gathered in accordance with accepted scientific methods. If your a nurse in real life I would assume you had enough science in school to understand scientific methods. If not you might start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .

Those things you want to claim about your god should form your hypothesis. That is a statement about what you are going to try to prove. For instance I want to claim that god exists and it is known because he answers prayers, that becomes the core of my hypothesis. So I would then look for evidence of prayers being answered, in ways that can be substantiated. Every christian child I know prays for god to protect their mom & dad. So I could gather death statistics on men & women with children and tabulate them by religious preference.

If god is protecting the Mommy's and Daddy's who are being prayed for we might expect their death rates to be substantially better than those who are not prayed for. This is a poor example because if the stats are not substantially better we don't know if it means god doesn't exist or if he said "no". Carefully crafting your hypothesis and scientific study can be tricky and this was just a quick example of how it might be done. If you are going to base your conclusions on a macro view of other studies be sure the underlying study has good scientific support.

IMHO, all these proofs will fail but that's because I don't believe god exists. I wish he did, but wishing doesn't make it so. To quote Carl Sagan: "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215]

Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

To whom, or to what should we, "be grateful?"

To whom or what ever you wish.

Should those who only experience, pain, and misery in this life, from start to finish, (and there are many) be grateful? Again, to whom should they be grateful?

Is life fair? Do we all get what we deserve? To whom should we be grateful?

I did not choose to be here, and I did not choose many of the things that have occurred to me, such as where I was born, the parents I have, the things I was taught, .............to whom should I be grateful?

Do you need some cheese with your whine?

Really? I didn't ask to get cancer, nor did my Mother who died from it. I didn't ask for my son to be born with a radial club hand and a hole in his heart, nor my daughter to have hip dysplasia.

Really! Every day I wake up without dirt in my face is a reason to celebrate. Go whine somewhere else.

FYI, it is a quote from a man who I'd wager was a lot smarter than you. He wasn't to keen on dying from cancer either. But he did so very bravely, without whining about it.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 28 by Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 24 by RonE]

Good afternoon RonE!! I hope you are doing great today!

What exactly is scientific proof? I mean, people say that all the time on this forum, but what does it actually mean? Science is based on data, this data is obtained through observation and experiment. What observations or experiments can we make to prove God exists?

Yes, that is a dilemma, and is completely dependent upon what claims you are making about your god. Generically I'd say scientific proof/evidence is that which is gathered in accordance with accepted scientific methods. If your a nurse in real life I would assume you had enough science in school to understand scientific methods. If not you might start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .

Hey Mr. RonE!!

Yes, I am a real life nurse I do understand scientific method, but we can't go putting God in a petri dish, can we?

These things you want to claim about your god should form your hypothesis. That is a statement about what you are going to try to prove. For instance I want to claim that god exists and it is known because he answers prayers, that becomes the core of my hypothesis. So I would then look for evidence of prayers being answered, in ways that can be substantiated. Every christian child I know prays for god to protect their mom & dad. So I could gather death statistics on men & women with children and tabulate them by religious preference.

The problem I see, is that the scientific method is great for those things that we can see or observe, especially in a physical sense. In a spiritual sense, it is much more tricky, for the data is quite objective.

IMHO, all these proofs will fail but that's because I don't believe god exists. I wish he did, but wishing doesn't make it so. To quote Carl Sagan: "I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215]

I don't mean to get off topic here, but I find that reasoning rather sad. Some people don't live a moral life, nor do some experience love at its greatest. We have been foster parents for 19 years, and I have seen some tragic things. I think it is that loss, that lack of hope, that can drive people to hurry the inevitable.

I will work on my strategy!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by RonE]


No one is "whining" here! You cited someone who claims, "Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

Okay, if it is better for me to be "grateful everyday for the opportunity that life provides" then this certainly seems to mean, there is someone, or something, that is responsible for giving me this opportunity? Who, or what, do I owe this gratefulness too?

If there is no one, or nothing responsible for giving me this opportunity, then I have no one to be grateful too, for this opportunity.

There may be many other things I have a reason to be grateful, such as being grateful to my parents for the things they gave to me. I am grateful to those in the military who protect the country I reside in. There are many things that I am grateful for, and I know who it is, I should be grateful too.

The question here is, if there is no one, or nothing responsible for giving me "the opportunity that life provides", then I really have no reason to be thankful for this, since it just seems to have happened.

I bring up all of the negative things in order to ask, if those who are less fortunate than ourselves, should be thankful for all the misery they have had the opportunity to experience?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 34 by Realworldjack] (my bold for emphasis)

[Replying to post 32 by RonE]
No one is "whining" here! You cited someone who claims, "Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

Okay, if it is better for me to be "grateful everyday for the opportunity that life provides" then this certainly seems to mean, there is someone, or something, that is responsible for giving me this opportunity? Who, or what, do I owe this gratefulness too?

I believe you are miss reading the line "Far better it seems to me". It is not a claim, "seems" would make it a statement of his opinion. Opinions do not need to be defended in this forum, especially when clearly stated as an opinion. The forum debate rule #5 states: "Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

If you haven't had the chance you might pick up some of Carl's books at your local library and get the flavor of the man. As to what meaning, if any, he attached to the line you seem to take issue with, you'd need to take that up with him. He died in December 1996.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 33 by Peds nurse]

The problem I see, is that the scientific method is great for those things that we can see or observe, especially in a physical sense. In a spiritual sense, it is much more tricky, for the data is quite objective.

Unfortunately that is the burden of proof for those who make the claims, especially claims of the supernatural, extraordinary claims. I know of no other proof that will be adequate for the claim.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 34 by Realworldjack] (my bold for emphasis)

[Replying to post 32 by RonE]
No one is "whining" here! You cited someone who claims, "Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

Okay, if it is better for me to be "grateful everyday for the opportunity that life provides" then this certainly seems to mean, there is someone, or something, that is responsible for giving me this opportunity? Who, or what, do I owe this gratefulness too?

I believe you are miss reading the line "Far better it seems to me". It is not a claim, "seems" would make it a statement of his opinion. Opinions do not need to be defended in this forum, especially when clearly stated as an opinion. The forum debate rule #5 states: "Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

If you haven't had the chance you might pick up some of Carl's books at your local library and get the flavor of the man. As to what meaning, if any, he attached to the line you seem to take issue with, you'd need to take that up with him. He died in December 1996.

It is not a claim, "seems" would make it a statement of his opinion.

Yes, I completely understand what you are saying. What I am attempting to understand is, how can someone who is convinced that there is nothing, nor anyone, who is responsible for the, "magnificent opportunity that life provides", come to the "opinion" that we should be grateful to this nothing, or no one?

All you have to do here is to disagree with this point, and all will be fine.

The forum debate rule #5 states: "Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

Of course the question here is, so you do NOT consider Sagan's "opinion" to be valid to the argument then, right? And it also is not, "legitimate support for the claim", right?

However, if you hold to the same opinion as Sagan, should those who have only, always experienced misery in this life, "be grateful for the opportunity?" You seem to be avoiding this question!

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
As if a Roman historian had to prove that Romulus and Remus existed before he can have a serious conversation about Julius Caesar!

What is that conversation about exactly

?

Your reply was out of context certainly from the beginning.

I will admit I don't read all of what everyone says. If someone starts off from the bat in a certain way, I react in a certain way.

I am pretty sure you did not get my point.

My point has been and always has been that "Inerrancy" has nothing to do with history. If a hostile shows a discrepancy in Exodus, it says nothing about the book Joshua per se. If Joshua has some discrepancies; it says nothing about the book of Mark. If Mark 2:10 is doubtful, it says nothing about Mark 6:8 (I am choosing random verse). If Paul is shown wrong about x, it is irrational to the highest degree to assume he must be wrong about z, per se.



That is my point; that has been my point; that will forever be my point.

thanks again!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 38 by liamconnor]

My point has been and always has been that "Inerrancy" has nothing to do with history. If a hostile shows a discrepancy in Exodus, it says nothing about the book Joshua per se. If Joshua has some discrepancies; it says nothing about the book of Mark. If Mark 2:10 is doubtful, it says nothing about Mark 6:8 (I am choosing random verse). If Paul is shown wrong about x, it is irrational to the highest degree to assume he must be wrong about z, per se.

This is if we don't allow at all for the possibility of an all knowing God inspiring the writings, if we treat them like any other book.
An historian reading up on the Trojan War won't declare the entire Trojan War fictional just because he doesn't believe Paris of Troy had to choose which of three goddesses was the most beautiful, even if the document(s) he's reading mention both the war and the beauty contest.
However, when we approach the Bible? Suddenly, its adherents claim that their god inspired its books, or authored them himself! Suddenly the practice you outline there in the quote box can't be used. How does it make sense that an all knowing god would inspire/write discrepancies? We expect humans to have discrepancies in their writings, but not all knowing gods.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 37 by Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 34 by Realworldjack] (my bold for emphasis)

[Replying to post 32 by RonE]
No one is "whining" here! You cited someone who claims, "Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

Okay, if it is better for me to be "grateful everyday for the opportunity that life provides" then this certainly seems to mean, there is someone, or something, that is responsible for giving me this opportunity? Who, or what, do I owe this gratefulness too?

I believe you are miss reading the line "Far better it seems to me". It is not a claim, "seems" would make it a statement of his opinion. Opinions do not need to be defended in this forum, especially when clearly stated as an opinion. The forum debate rule #5 states: "Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

If you haven't had the chance you might pick up some of Carl's books at your local library and get the flavor of the man. As to what meaning, if any, he attached to the line you seem to take issue with, you'd need to take that up with him. He died in December 1996.

It is not a claim, "seems" would make it a statement of his opinion.

Yes, I completely understand what you are saying. What I am attempting to understand is, how can someone who is convinced that there is nothing, nor anyone, who is responsible for the, "magnificent opportunity that life provides", come to the "opinion" that we should be grateful to this nothing, or no one?

All you have to do here is to disagree with this point, and all will be fine.

The forum debate rule #5 states: "Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. "

Of course the question here is, so you do NOT consider Sagan's "opinion" to be valid to the argument then, right? And it also is not, "legitimate support for the claim", right?

However, if you hold to the same opinion as Sagan, should those who have only, always experienced misery in this life, "be grateful for the opportunity?" You seem to be avoiding this question!

There was no claim made by me in regards to Carl's opinion. The next time I talk to Carl I'll be sure to discuss the matter with him, it's the kind of conversation he would love. What you've tried to zero in on was not the part that I highlighted for emphasis. Why have you ignored that? Here, I'll give it to you again:

I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.

Happy to discuss that with you, because that is the point of my post.