What is the best evidence against Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 12:18 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 11:36 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(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.

Deflection? I pointed out that atheists here, don't tend to think in terms of most likely explanation. You suggested an explanation, but when asked to think about the explanation you suggested, you accused me of deflection.

It seems you're appealing to deflection, as a means to deflect.

"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, 12:20 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 11:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Who likely stole the body?

Personally I think the body, if any, never made it to a private tomb. I think it more likely that the Romans would have just left it up on the cross to rot, then interred it in a mass grave.

The "empty tomb" fable, IMO, is pure fiction.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
28-12-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 12:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Pro tip: The Gospels are the claim, not the evidence.

No the gospels are evidence. You just have you own personal definition of what evidence means, that likely no historians would be inclined to accept. You just attempt to translate your understanding of evidence in one particular medium, unto another, when there's no real one to one comparison.

But it's fine, you can have you own personal criteria, own personal though patters, and rules, which pretty much every atheists does, just acknowledge them as your own.

"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, 12:36 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
At work.

Um, no Tomasia.

Your post about some empty sepulcher is at the level of "A story" in its presentation.

'Evidence' is more than "A story". Though, please, explain why the stories of other deities are less valid than yours. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
28-12-2016, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 01:02 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 12:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Deflection? I pointed out that atheists here, don't tend to think in terms of most likely explanation. You suggested an explanation, but when asked to think about the explanation you suggested, you accused me of deflection.

It seems you're appealing to deflection, as a means to deflect.

Let me see if I follow you. I suggested tongue-in-cheek an alternative, simpler explanation to your completely absurd assertion that an empty hole in a rock is evidence a person can survive their own death and you want me to ignore the absurdity of your assertion and instead consider flaws in my explanation. You are not a serious person.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-12-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 12:36 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Your post about some empty sepulcher is at the level of "A story" in its presentation.

'Evidence' is more than "A story".
But of course a story of exceptional magical events, written decades after the alleged event, written by non witness, without reference as to how the author came by the information must be considered very strong evidence because it confirms what the Christians believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
28-12-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 12:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 12:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Pro tip: The Gospels are the claim, not the evidence.

No the gospels are evidence. You just have you own personal definition of what evidence means, that likely no historians would be inclined to accept. You just attempt to translate your understanding of evidence in one particular medium, unto another, when there's no real one to one comparison.

But it's fine, you can have you own personal criteria, own personal though patters, and rules, which pretty much every atheists does, just acknowledge them as your own.

Not my personal criteria - the criteria of all evidence: corroboration and credibility.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

First demonstrate the Gospel stories are fact, then we can admit them into 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
28-12-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  The best evidence against Christianity? Well everybody has already done the old evolution dance.

While evolution does not disprove a god, it effectively repudiates the adam/eve/original sin mess.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  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 assume you mean "chestnut". And yes, the problem of evil is in fact a problem.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  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.

You are using the word "theory" incorrectly.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  And therefore those arguing the case for evolution and by extension atheism are left with a pathos argument rather than logical.

Atheism and evolution are not connected. You are making multiple errors in logic and grammar.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Or even worse a pathetic attempt at an ethos argument.
Or a faith based argument.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Which should not apply to an atheist subscribing to postmodernism. (That's a lecture by itself)

Do tell.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  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.

You do not sound humble at all. Which is rather ironic considering the number of errors you've made so far.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Now I'll briefly lay my cards on the table here.

Considering the wall of text you posted, I'm inferring that you don't know the definition of "briefly" either...

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  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.

Nice to know all that up front I suppose.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Now as I said Atheists suck at giving logical arguments against Christianity.

yawn.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  No the best approach is to use their own scripture.

Which many of us here do. Your comment illustrates a lack of knowledge regarding atheists and adds doubt to your other statements.

No, most christians are not well trained in resolving contradictions. Most haven't even read the bible. And your list of options failed to include changing the subject and ending the conversation.

You also misuse "opinion" instead of "option".

You definition of "doctrine" is also wrong. If you choose to redefine a word, no one else is obligated to accept it.

This leads us to your lack of knowledge regarding evolution. It is not taken on faith but grounded in fact and evidence.

You keep talking about lectures and you can't even properly break up a text into paragraphs. WTF?

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  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.

First, many of us used to be religious and went to sunday school. Second, no, you have told us nothing that we haven't heard before. Third, you're missing several points regarding the bible. For example: how it was constructed, the forged texts, orthodoxy, etc.

Honestly the stuff you're pointing out is pretty basic.

(28-12-2016 12:07 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  And I don't concern myself with atheist doctrines or Christian doctrines. I'll continue with the second point in a future post.

There are no atheist doctrines. If you think there are, please cite one so that the rest of us can read it.

Apparently atheists aren't the only ones who suck at logical arguments...

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
[+] 6 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-12-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 01:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 12:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No the gospels are evidence. You just have you own personal definition of what evidence means, that likely no historians would be inclined to accept. You just attempt to translate your understanding of evidence in one particular medium, unto another, when there's no real one to one comparison.

But it's fine, you can have you own personal criteria, own personal though patters, and rules, which pretty much every atheists does, just acknowledge them as your own.

Not my personal criteria - the criteria of all evidence: corroboration and credibility.

No it's your personal criteria, you may want it to be definitive and authoritative but it's not.

Quote:[i]Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The gospels are a part of the available body of facts and information, indicating whether a variety of propositions and beliefs are true or valid.

Quote:First demonstrate the Gospel stories are fact, then we can admit them into evidence.

You have your own personal criteria for what any of these terms mean, in fact your personal criteria doesn't align with the criteria historians and scholars use on the subject. But that's perfectly with your right to do so, not that anyone needs to care.

And I don't care what you think or don't think is evidence or a fact, because your opinion, and personal definitions, unlike the opinions of scholars and historians is rather worthless in matters of history.

"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, 01:21 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 12:40 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Let me see if I follow you. I suggested tongue-in-cheek an alternative, simpler explanation to your completely absurd assertion that an empty hole in a rock is evidence a person can survive their own death and you want me to ignore the absurdity of your assertion and instead consider flaws in my explanation. You are not a serious person.

This was my assertion which you initially quoted: "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."

My assertions was that atheists such as yourself don't tent to think in terms of explanations, not "an empty a hole in rock is evidence a person can survive death". The latter was just your strawman.

And you basically proved my point.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: