What is the best evidence against Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
At work.

In response to Tomasia's reply......

Laugh out load

No

As a self described 'Non-theist' with currently little time to reply. I veiw your responce as a poor caricature of what, perhaps, you might think an atheist is.

Still I look forwards to others replies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 04:11 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Then why do biblical scholars believe the empty tomb was true

Likely because many atheists here think in terms of belief and lack of belief, rather in terms of most likely explanations, which historians and scholars often do.

A historian would look at the available resources/data, and draw the most likely explanation for it. Such as looking at the available resources and asking whether it's more likely that there was a historical Jesus, that gave rise to the Christian movement or not.

Atheists here on the other hand, like to start with thinking whether or not the data and resources available constitute as evidence, primarily by deciding how well the term translates from fields like biology into history. If they decide it doesn't constitute as evidence, rather than explaining it, they appeal to a lack of belief.

Their counter positions on the resurrection, historicity, is not an alternative explanation, but rather an appeal to lack of belief, such as is the case against the existence of God in general.

Which university was your PhD from again? Mr I know science I was a secretary at a Pharma company Rolleyes

Here's a golden opportunity for you: show that the empty tomb is the "most likely explanation". Your words, not mine, bucko.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 10:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Likely because many atheists here think in terms of belief and lack of belief, rather in terms of most likely explanations, which historians and scholars often do.

Which university was your PhD from again? Mr I know science I was a secretary at a Pharma company Rolleyes

Here's a golden opportunity for you: show that the empty tomb is the "most likely explanation". Your words, not mine, bucko.

Applying the law of parsimony, grave robbers would be the most likely explanation. Unless I was on trial for grave robbing, in which case resurrection is the most likely explanation.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-12-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 04:11 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Then why do biblical scholars believe the empty tomb was true

Likely because many atheists here think in terms of belief and lack of belief, rather in terms of most likely explanations, which historians and scholars often do.

A historian would look at the available resources/data, and draw the most likely explanation for it. Such as looking at the available resources and asking whether it's more likely that there was a historical Jesus, that gave rise to the Christian movement or not.

Atheists here on the other hand, like to start with thinking whether or not the data and resources available constitute as evidence, primarily by deciding how well the term translates from fields like biology into history. If they decide it doesn't constitute as evidence, rather than explaining it, they appeal to a lack of belief.

Their counter positions on the resurrection, historicity, is not an alternative explanation, but rather an appeal to lack of belief, such as is the case against the existence of God in general.

There is no explanation needed as there is no actual evidence of a tomb, let alone an empty one.

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
28-12-2016, 11:22 AM
What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 11:16 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 10:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Which university was your PhD from again? Mr I know science I was a secretary at a Pharma company Rolleyes

Here's a golden opportunity for you: show that the empty tomb is the "most likely explanation". Your words, not mine, bucko.

Applying the law of parsimony, grave robbers would be the most likely explanation. Unless I was on trial for grave robbing, in which case resurrection is the most likely explanation.


Do grave robbers tend to steal corpses out of graves, or valuables?

Who likely stole the body? His followers? Who if they did would have known he didn't resurrect. So why?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
The best evidence against christianity is the theology itself is nonsensical.

The tri-partite deity?
The "father" third enacting the blood sacrifice of the "Son" third, with the "Spirit" third completely absent.
The sacrifice was needed to loophole the laws that the Father third had created. What was the need for a loophole? Why not just change the laws?

The sacrifice itself is nonsensical. The Son third assumes human form and limits his power. He lives a limited human life and dies. He regains his deific powers and reassumes his existence as a god.

How is that a sacrifice? Being born and being a human would be a sacrifice. Dying would be a meaningless microsecond in an eternal existence. Then back to being a god. This is not a sacrifice.

Worse, one entity cannot atone for the actions of another. If you commit an action, nothing can change the fact that YOU committed that action. Doesn't matter who forgives you or who doesn't. Doesn't matter who judges you or doesn't. YOU committed that action.

The need for the sacrifice doesn't work - god doesn't need a loophole
So the sacrificial victim doesn't work - jesus "dying" wasn't a sacrifice
The sacrifice itself doesn't work - no vicarious atonement

Why even consider evidence when the story you're trying to prove can't withstand the scrutiny?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-12-2016, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 11:42 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 11:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Who likely stole the body? His followers? Who if they did would have known he didn't resurrect. So why?

Deflection is not your strong suit. Resurrection presumes dualism. How can the soul exist separate and independent from the body? Whether you realize it or not your view has put you in the unenviable and untenable position of defending dualism. Many have tried. All have failed. But you're special. Get back to me when you have a tenable argument with a plausible mechanism of action for dualism (the pineal gland's already been taken) and we can proceed about whether Jesus demonstrated this.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-12-2016, 11:37 AM
What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 11:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Likely because many atheists here think in terms of belief and lack of belief, rather in terms of most likely explanations, which historians and scholars often do.

A historian would look at the available resources/data, and draw the most likely explanation for it. Such as looking at the available resources and asking whether it's more likely that there was a historical Jesus, that gave rise to the Christian movement or not.

Atheists here on the other hand, like to start with thinking whether or not the data and resources available constitute as evidence, primarily by deciding how well the term translates from fields like biology into history. If they decide it doesn't constitute as evidence, rather than explaining it, they appeal to a lack of belief.

Their counter positions on the resurrection, historicity, is not an alternative explanation, but rather an appeal to lack of belief, such as is the case against the existence of God in general.

There is no explanation needed as there is no actual evidence of a tomb, let alone an empty one.

A fine example of the specimen I was referring to earlier.

A better translation of his post would be:

The resources and data, according to Chas criteria for evidence, doesn't constitute as evidence, therefore no explanation is required, therefore lack of belief.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 12:07 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
The best evidence against Christianity? Well everybody has already done the old evolution dance. And of course we got "God is a mean kid over an ant hill scorching helpless ants" deal. You know that old chest nut. I have heard it all before. More pathos arguments than anything. Only one that could be argued as logical is the evolution dance. But really evolution as a theory is more petitio pricipii or post hoc ergo proper hoc which both are major logical fallacies. And therefore those arguing the case for evolution and by extension atheism are left with a pathos argument rather than logical. Or even worse a pathetic attempt at an ethos argument. Which should not apply to an atheist subscribing to postmodernism. (That's a lecture by itself) I have witnessed and participated in various "Christianity vs. Atheism" debates. I got to say Atheists suck at giving a logical argument as to my humble observation. Now I'll briefly lay my cards on the table here. First I am a disciple of Yahshua Messiah. Second I think everyone has the right to believe as they choose. Third I will not proselytize it's pointless. Fourth I do not buy into what is called Christian doctrines. Fifth I don't think skeptics are skeptical enough. Wow a full hand indeed. Bottom line read this post and draw your OWN conclusions.
Now as I said Atheists suck at giving logical arguments against Christianity. They usually break down into pathos arguments. There is a better way than "proving evolution" or making God out to be the bad guy. Or even trying to "debunk" God in the first place. Christians just hear "blah blah I think you're an idiot, blah blah your god is an idiot blah blah I'm an arrogant ass who thinks he's smarter than your backwards ass". While all the debunking and evolution and God is a bad guy makes perfect sense to you. To a Christian it's just blasphemous gibberish. And he won't even hear you. Don't believe me ask Bill Nye about his visit with Ken Ham. No the best approach is to use their own scripture.
Wait a minute we already pointed out that the Bible is full of contradiction. No actually you haven't but merely stated it with barely a leg to stand on. And most Christians are well trained in debunking those contradictions. No what you should do is point out to them how their doctrines if truly biblical as they claim are either unbiblical or makes the Bible contradictory. This will leave them with only four opinions. Only one of which they'll actually do depending on how washed they really are. Option 1: reevaluate their entire belief system. (Which is unlikely for the diehards) option 2: Admit that either the Bible is wrong or church doctrines are unbiblical (again unlikely) Option 3: go into illogical gibberish (very likely). Option 4: burn you at the stake as a heretic (unlikely as a literal burning but a verbal burning very likely)
Here I'll define my term doctrine, as a theory or hypothesis although unproven or unprovable by a Baconion method, is taught as fact. I'm sorry evolution falls into this category. Send your hate mail. My only rebuttal to this is question even your own belief in evolution. If it were such a fact then why must it be taken on faith? Go back to card five above. Not to mention that too is a lecture all by itself.
I'll give you three popular doctrines of Christianity that are completely illogical. First doctrine of the Trinity. Second the immortal soul. Third Sunday replacing the Saturday sabbath. (It might not make much sense but this is a "hot button" issue). First I'll briefly elaborate on the Trinity. The basic Christian maxim is Christians are monotheistic They believe in one God. But they also believe this God is somehow three persons in one. This being the Father Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Which in the Bible is often depicted as a dove pillars of fire and smoke etc). This is what you need to point out. First of all the while the Bible does depict a Father and Son as two entities. It never really depicts the Holy Spirit as a separate entity. But rather as the power and presence and shared essence of both Father and Son. And even curiouser if the Holy Spirit is a distinct entity deserving the same respect and recognition due that of Father and Son. Then why is mention of the Holy Spirit conspicuously missing from all of Paul's greetings in his epistles? Major oversight for a man who supposedly met a resurrected Jesus personally and received direct instruction from God Himself if the Holy Spirit is really third entity in a divide trinity if you ask me. Paul mentions Father and Son but no Holy Spirit. Now you're probably saying big deal. We know Christians are quacks so why does this matter? It matters because this proves by the very scripture they claim to base all of their beliefs how weak this argument is. They'll probably spit some crap like Matthew 28:20. But Jesus was making a point here that the believer comes to the Father by faith in the Son and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit in the baptism. And the baptism is identifing with the Son symbolically by dying and being brought back to life like Jesus. Compare with Acts chapter 2 in Peter's sermon. Also they will give you some John chapter 17 crap. But this is dead in the water too. But either way if they stick to the doctrine the contradiction become clear. I know this sounds a lot like Sunday school to you. But this is the stuff they don't teach in Sunday school because if they did. Sunday school would cease to exist. I'm really giving you some inside information here. Not to mention the Bible no where teaches the Trinity. And as far as the supposed plurality of God. Well if one thinks of God in terms of "M" theory and the 11 or 10 dimensions therein. (Whichever you please) Then God exists beyond 4D space/time in a realm where information equals reality. If you subscribe to Rob Brianton's interpretation of the extra dimensions. Therefore God us spaceless as well as timeless. And here and there are really arbitrary. Even so God if He exists in such a dimension can be His own cause and effect, His own Father as well as Son. So Jesus as God the Son would be as a separate an entity as a time travel twin. Or more precisely a 4D manifestation of a 10 or 11D creature if such does exist. And if one could conceive of such a creature than it would explain the incredible things reported in the Bible. Case in point Abbot's flatland. But really you'll probably get this far with your typical Christian. And if your argument is successful you won't need to. And really this is a bitter pill for even the most levelheaded atheist to swallow. Really because of atheistic politics. Which rejects even the possibility of God outright. But I'm burning the proverbial candle at both ends. And I don't concern myself with atheist doctrines or Christian doctrines. I'll continue with the second point in a future post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 11:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no explanation needed as there is no actual evidence of a tomb, let alone an empty one.

A fine example of the specimen I was referring to earlier.

A better translation of his post would be:

The resources and data, according to Chas criteria for evidence, doesn't constitute as evidence, therefore no explanation is required, therefore lack of belief.

Where is your evidence?

Pro tip: The Gospels are the claim, not the evidence.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: