Compelling evidence for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2012, 10:36 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
You want us to list the compelling evidence for Christianity? If there WERE compelling evidence for Christianity, then what the fuck are we all doing here? Are we a collective of people who acknowledge the existence of compelling evidence, but refuse to accept it out of ignorance or stubbornness? This rings of "homosexuality is a choice." We knew of a compelling evidence, but still chose to be atheists for all the wonderful treatment we are given by "Christian America" and for the perks, such as not being ostracized in job selection, social circles, and ritualistic prayers at dinners and holidays.

A more rational thread would be for us to post the arguments that are least ridiculous, since we all know the flaws with the so-called evidence we have been presented with. My vote for least ridiculous is the Teleological, or design argument, since some things in nature do appear to have function and purpose independent of their own survival, and so something giving them laws to behave in such a way could be seen as plausible.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go poop.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Buddy Christ's post
12-08-2012, 10:41 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
The Bible as History->Jesus->God->Bible as Word of God

So far the best thing I could find... Not exactly compelling at all to me.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 10:44 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(12-08-2012 10:36 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go poop.
Unsure
Ok.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 11:25 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012 11:28 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity




YAY

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
12-08-2012, 11:39 PM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(12-08-2012 02:38 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Yes, but what I said still stands. There isn't any compelling evidence, and if ideaonscribe is able to supply it, I will go fuck myself royally. Remember, this evidence has to support the Christian deity.

Can I watch? Shocking

That last point you made -- that it "has to support the Christian deity" -- is probably the most important part. The only evidence for Christianity that I ever hear that doesn't also "prove" other gods without setting up a double-standard is the resurrection of Jesus and the evidence from prophesy. Prophesy is a very easy one to knock down because you simply have to point out prophesies that didn't come true. The resurrection one is a bit tougher because we certainly can't prove that any of it didn't happen, for the same reason that we can't... it's so old, it's impossible to examine without looking at hearsay of hearsay.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 12:05 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(12-08-2012 11:39 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(12-08-2012 02:38 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Yes, but what I said still stands. There isn't any compelling evidence, and if ideaonscribe is able to supply it, I will go fuck myself royally. Remember, this evidence has to support the Christian deity.

Can I watch? Shocking

That last point you made -- that it "has to support the Christian deity" -- is probably the most important part. The only evidence for Christianity that I ever hear that doesn't also "prove" other gods without setting up a double-standard is the resurrection of Jesus and the evidence from prophesy. Prophesy is a very easy one to knock down because you simply have to point out prophesies that didn't come true. The resurrection one is a bit tougher because we certainly can't prove that any of it didn't happen, for the same reason that we can't... it's so old, it's impossible to examine without looking at hearsay of hearsay.

Not at all just look at the archeological evidence, apply some logic, and basic anatomy physiology and it comes falling down. In this era it should be called the great Christ myth.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
13-08-2012, 04:09 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2012 04:15 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(12-08-2012 09:36 PM)scientician Wrote:  That, my friend, commits the genetic fallacy. Evolving to become agents that are subject to morality doesn't at all speak to the existence or the objectivity of moral facts. An objective morality could exist independent of our perception of it even if we did evolve to respond to it. Perhaps our evolution was perfectly tailored to suit an objective morality. Then your argument would suit a theist as well.

The organisms that evolve to a point into which morality is present, primarily because they are social animals, doesn't mean that they are necessarily bound to that morality. Not only can there be genetic defects (psychopathy), but it is subject to change when influenced by selective pressures.

No, but evolution destroys the benevolent God theory and throws the crummy remains out the window. That conflicts with the Christian deity. One cannot change the core properties for the Judeo-Christian deity, or else you would no longer arguing for it. The deistic stance is actually possible to defend because they make no irrationally specific claims about the qualities of their fairy.

(12-08-2012 09:36 PM)scientician Wrote:  Compelling to you or not, people much smarter than I have been compelled by things like that...

Like whom? William Lane Craig?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2012 05:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(12-08-2012 09:36 PM)scientician Wrote:  For instance, if an infinite series of events continues from here backwards in time than it follows that it would have taken an infinite amount of time to proceed forward through that infinite series of events. Therefore it's the equivalent of saying these events never got through; you can't add consecutive series and reach infinity. Consider adding 1 to a series of numbers and trying to get to infinity.
We don't know whether we have a universe from nothing (Krauss, et al.) or mass/energy has always existed.
Don't get me started on that book, haha!
There is good neo-Darwinist evidence for the evolution of morality.
That, my friend, commits the genetic fallacy. Evolving to become agents that are subject to morality doesn't at all speak to the existence or the objectivity of moral facts. An objective morality could exist independent of our perception of it even if we did evolve to respond to it. Perhaps our evolution was perfectly tailored to suit an objective morality. Then your argument would suit a theist as well.
[i]Compelling to you or not, people much smarter than I have been compelled by things like that...

And you sir, have completely evaded the questions at hand, in a totally obvious way. You do not seem to understand the Mathematical concept of the "infinite set", just as WLC, does not.
Saying "don't get me started" is no argument. You say "smarter people than you" have found (in #4), the argument compelling. Are you saying you are smarter than Krauss ?
The origins of morality do not rest in gods, as anyone who has actually taken Anthropology knows, and if that is not good enough for you, then maybe Plato will do. (see below).
All of present day Christianity is based on fallacious historical artifacts, which were purposely manipulated to arrive at a predetermined result, ("original sin", "salvation", the Yahweh god, etc etc etc). from known historical origins, by known historical developments, by humans, for completely human purposes.

Morality cannot originate from gods :
Gods are not the source of morality. The Platonic Conundrum, (Bucky's negative re-write of Euthyphro's Dilemma).

1. Something is wrong, because god says it's wrong.

2. Why did god say it's wrong ?
3. Did he have a good reason ?

4. If there is no good reason, then it could be right.
5. If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.

6. Could he have said it's right ?
7. If he could not say it's right, then truth and moral value exist apart from god.

8. Is it wrong because god says it's wrong, or is it wrong, because it's objectively wrong, and god had to say that ?
9. Would it be right if god says it's right ?

Conclusions:

If god could not have said it's right, and still be god, then the source of the moral law is not god.
If it would still be wrong even if god says it's right, then the source of morality is not god.

If the source of morality is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance

The Kalam argument is refuted in the same way. Just as First Cause is refuted by the fact that it requires linnear time, "before" spacetime existed, and Relativity, so the Kalam argument is refuted by the obvious fallacious need for pre-existing "causality". If time, and causality are not already in place, the argument is impossible to make, and commits the fallacy of begging the question of who set up the system of causality, in the first place, and THAT DOES devolve into infinite regression, and "setting up causality" requires a priori causality.
So, no, you are wrong. There is not a shred of compelling anything for the bullshit known as theism, or Christianity.





In short, here is my response to Christianity.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 06:09 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(12-08-2012 09:36 PM)scientician Wrote:  There is no compelling first cause argument for the existence of God; it always devolves to either infinite regress.

Ignoring that versions of the cosmological argument bypass this objection by taking "universe" to mean the sum of all physical reality (including such an infinite regress) there are serious objections to the possibility that such an infinite state could actually exist.

For instance, if an infinite series of events continues from here backwards in time than it follows that it would have taken an infinite amount of time to proceed forward through that infinite series of events. Therefore it's the equivalent of saying these events never got through; you can't add consecutive series and reach infinity. Consider adding 1 to a series of numbers and trying to get to infinity.
No, this is a gross misunderstanding of infinity.
Quote:We don't know whether we have a universe from nothing (Krauss, et al.) or mass/energy has always existed.


Don't get me started on that book, haha!


There is good neo-Darwinist evidence for the evolution of morality.


That, my friend, commits the genetic fallacy. Evolving to become agents that are subject to morality doesn't at all speak to the existence or the objectivity of moral facts. An objective morality could exist independent of our perception of it even if we did evolve to respond to it. Perhaps our evolution was perfectly tailored to suit an objective morality. Then your argument would suit a theist as well.
No fallacy. You are positing, without any evidence, the existence of objective morality. We evolved cooperating.
Quote:Nope, still nothing compelling here.


Compelling to you or not, people much smarter than I have been compelled by things like that...

But none of them seem to be present.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 06:16 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
[Image: conan.gif]

I'm looking forward to ideasonscribe's comeback. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: