Point Refuted A Thousand Times (P.R.A.T.T.)

[bluegreenearth]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Remember the story about the old guys around a wood stove in the county store telling the same jokes (or was it lies?) so many times that they gave each joke a number. Call out a number and everyone laughs, another number another laugh.

We could even incorporate that system here:
101. I translate better than Bible linguists, translators and editors.
102. Just BELIEVE and you will be saved
103. There are no contradictions in the Bible
104. What that really means is . . . .
105. A REAL Christian would (or wouldn't) . . . .

The first 100 are left for others to supply

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Why don't you give us a listing with them as well as reasons if all is so wrong?

Yeah, let's have it.

[Wootah]

I approve of all options. But it is worth reminding ourselves that it can be looking at something the 100th time that changes our perspective.

[Divine Insight]

Regardless of your worldview, it is always frustrating and mentally exhausting when someone repeats an out-dated argument that has already been sufficiently refuted numerous times within the same or a different thread. Rather than having to remind the opposition of how the old argument they are attempting to use is demonstrably refuted, I propose we simply respond with the label "PRATT" along with the link to where the refutation was initially posted.

I'm 70 years old. I've been extremely interested in Christian theology since my late teens. I can say with total confidence, that I haven't heard a compelling apology for this religion in 50 years. That's half a century of listening carefully and considering every apology offered up.

There simply are no apologies that have not already been refuted.

So as far as I can see,...

Christian Theology = P.R.A.T.T.

There simply are no meaningful arguments that can be given to support it.

The only valid argument that can be given for Christian Theology is the following:

"Yes, it doesn't make any sense, and cannot be shown to be true. Therefore it must be accepted on pure faith in the hope that by some miracle it could still be true. We just need to have faith that God can explain why it makes no sense."

That's the only valid apology for the religion, and one that many theists ultimate resort to for lack of anything better.

And my reply to that single valid apology is as follows:

"Why in the world I want to place my faith in a theology that proclaims that I'm in the doghouse with my creator and the only solution was for my creator to arrange to have a bunch of ignorant humans brutally crucify him on my behalf?"

As far as I'm concerned I'd need to be insane to even want to believe that on pure faith.

In fact, to be honest I'd rather believe that we just die when we die. Unlike many theists I'm not terrified of the thought of death.

It seems to me that a person must truly be terrified of the thought of dying to embrace a religion that requires that they are fundamentally evil and unworthy of their creator.

I personally feel that it's an extremely sad situation to be in when a person needs to believe in such a dismal religion just to convince themselves that they won't die.

And to make matters even far worse, there are even far better religions they could choose to embrace that aren't anywhere near as dismal. After all, if I were going to believe in a religion on pure faith I would much rather believe in Buddhism than Christianity. Why pick a derogatory religion when far more uplifting religions are available?

Christianity is basically emotional masochism. You need to believe the worst about yourself in order to believe in the religion.

Of course, as we all know, no Christians actually believe in Christianity. Instead they imagine that they are all in "favor" with God and they will be showered with loving gifts of eternal life in paradise. So they twist an extremely depressing religion into something they can feel good about. God LOVES them! And they weren't responsible for Christ having to be crucified on a pole. Of course not. Only those who refuse to accept Christ as their savior are responsible for that.

That's how utterly twisted the theology truly is. Christians don't even accept the religion for what it is. Instead, they picture themselves as being in good with God.

Exactly the opposite of what the theology actually teaches.

[Mithrae]

Notwithstanding its success in hitting the sweet spot for of some of our atheist members, we can obviously add basically every line in DI's post #5 to the PRATT list. Notably the extremely narrow, fundamentalist approach to Christianity (with a boatload of strawman caricaturing on top of that!). Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians - and subject to a variety of nuances even among those who broadly do accept them - and yet these are apparently such good targets that acknowledging that this vitriolic diatribe applies to the beliefs of only a fraction of Christians is just too much to ask. One of our most active Christian members and moderators is outspokenly opposed to many of those ideas, for crying out loud! Another possible factor, for those who adopt this kind of approach to discussing 'Christianity,' is that the more fundamentalist forms of religion are often much easier to beat up on, as suggested for example in a 2012 thread on the subject:
Shooting Fish in Barrels
Debating only the low-hanging fruit

[wiploc]

Notwithstanding its success in hitting the sweet spot for of some of our atheist members, we can obviously add basically every line in DI's post #5 to the PRATT list. Notably the extremely narrow, fundamentalist approach to Christianity (with a boatload of strawman caricaturing on top of that!). Doctrines such as total depravity and substitutionary atonement are by no means universally held among Christians - and subject to a variety of nuances even among those who broadly do accept them - and yet these are apparently such good targets that acknowledging that this vitriolic diatribe applies to the beliefs of only a fraction of Christians is just too much to ask. One of our most active Christian members and moderators is outspokenly opposed to many of those ideas, for crying out loud! Another possible factor, for those who adopt this kind of approach to discussing 'Christianity,' is that the more fundamentalist forms of religion are often much easier to beat up on, as suggested for example in a 2012 thread on the subject:
Shooting Fish in Barrels
Debating only the low-hanging fruit

If we're only allowed to refute the parts of Christianity that Christians all agree with, there will be nothing left to refute.

It's true that some apologetic arguments take longer to refute, but they are still P.R.A.T.T.

[Mithrae]

If we're only allowed to refute the parts of Christianity that Christians all agree with, there will be nothing left to refute.

I didn't even remotely suggest that. But perhaps we could start by trying for some basic honesty and common decency, rather than posting and 'liking' vitriolic brazen falsehoods such as

Christianity is basically emotional masochism. You need to believe the worst about yourself in order to believe in the religion. Of course, as we all know, no Christians actually believe in Christianity. . . . That's how utterly twisted the theology truly is. Christians don't even accept the religion for what it is.

Or is that too much to ask?

The fact that some of our atheist members don't recognize how truly tedious and constantly-refuted these talking points and diatribes such as that in post #5 have become - and already were many years ago - possibly gives a little insight into why some of our Christian members have similar blind spots about their own talking points We all have a tendency to lke the things that we want to hear, without always thinking it through very well. Mantras such as "no evidence for X" or "no valid justification" - or indeed the very idea of a 'point refuted a thousand times,' despite sometimes actually being the case - can only serve to enhance those tendencies, because they reinforce our existing opinions rather than encouraging us to constantly challenge them anew.

[benchwarmer]

If we're only allowed to refute the parts of Christianity that Christians all agree with, there will be nothing left to refute.

I didn't even remotely suggest that. But perhaps we could start by trying for some basic honesty and common decency, rather than posting and 'liking' vitriolic brazen falsehoods like

Christianity is basically emotional masochism. You need to believe the worst about yourself in order to believe in the religion. Of course, as we all know, no Christians actually believe in Christianity. . . . That's how utterly twisted the theology truly is. Christians don't even accept the religion for what it is.

I assume by this you disagree with everything in that quote.

How is requiring us to believe we are all sinful in nature (due to something 2 people supposedly did at the beginning of the human race) not exactly what DI is talking about? I think DI boils it down very well which unfortunately can make it uncomfortable to hear.

Does Christianity require belief in our sinful nature, yes or no?

Does Christianity require you to accept the sacrifice of Jesus ON YOUR BEHALF to be saved, yes or no?

I'm sure DI can expand on exactly what he means, but there is certainly truth in his words.

[Mithrae]

Does Christianity require belief in our sinful nature, yes or no?

No.

Does Christianity require you to accept the sacrifice of Jesus ON YOUR BEHALF to be saved, yes or no?

No.

Why are you asking such obvious questions? I already pointed out in post #6 that neither total depravity nor substitutionary atonement are universally held Christian beliefs; and not only that but at least one our most prominent Christian members is outspokenly opposed to views along those lines. It would seem to require some incredibly selective reading of this thread and the forum in general to be imagining that DI's insults are somehow legitimate. But, as I said, we often 'like' what we want to hear and Christians obviously aren't the only ones for whom that tendency can sometimes create blind spots