What is the best evidence against Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 01:29 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.
Yes, but they're as equal evidence as the koran, Nordic runes, the bhavada Gita, the annals of Buddhism, oral legends still passed today, the book of mormon, the John from believers, the Egyptian books of the dead, etc.

They're all on the same equal grounds of evidence that people believe in something. And that's all their equal evidence about which is why every other religious evidence is the best clear examples against Christianity.

The best one can connect it to is a crazy plot blaming the devil for other religions or a baha'i/pops like faith that concludes they are all true to same twisted detail despite some literally calling other religions false in their texts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
28-12-2016, 01:30 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. ... And I don't concern myself with atheist doctrines or Christian doctrines.

Interesting introduction to the forum... a wall of text making sweeping, and generally insulting, generalizations about both atheists and theists, a vague indication of some personal theology, equivocations on "faith" with regard to evolution, misunderstanding of what atheism is, claims of superior skills at interpretation,... same shit, different day.

Perhaps if you try explaining what you believe and what evidence supports that belief it could be interesting. Without that...
Knights who say NI!

Quote: I'll continue with the second point in a future post.

Thanks for the warning although I don't see that you made a first point yet, at least not one that was intended. By the way, if you want anybody to bother reading your diatribes, paragraphs are your friend.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
28-12-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(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.

They are not. The best scholars in the field say they are not. YOU are the outsider here. If they are "evidence" of anything, they are evidence that no one agreed about most anything.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-12-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 01:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 01:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  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: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.

The only demonstrable fact is that the Gospels exist. What they [i]contain has not shown to be fact.

The facts are that they were written after the fact by people who were not eyewitnesses; who could not, in fact, be eyewitnesses.

Hearsay, at best.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
28-12-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 01:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are not. The best scholars in the field say they are not. Y

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Quotes from the link you provided:

"The gospels are, first of all, extremely reliable historical documents for their own time and place. Mark tells us very much about, say, a community writing in the 70's. John, a community writing in the mid-90's."

In fact the term in question here, "evidence" appears twice in the link you provided, one in a question by the interviewer, replied to with the above quote by Crossan.

And the other here:

" I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way."

So quit trying to erect a strawman.

"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, 02:14 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 01:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 01:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No it's your personal criteria, you may want it to be definitive and authoritative but it's not.


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.


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.

The only demonstrable fact is that the Gospels exist. What they contain has not shown to be fact.

The facts are that they were written after the fact by people who were not eyewitnesses; who could not, in fact, be eyewitnesses.

Hearsay, at best.

Nearly all of the written sources we have from that period, are not eye-witness accounts, even those written by historians. In fact while the Gospels are not eye-witness accounts, the writings of Paul are in regards to meeting with Jesus's disciples, and brother.

Not being eye-witness accounts doesn't rule them out from being evidence, just like historians don't rule out Josephus and other chroniclers of the time, for not being eye-witnessess to a number of the events they describe.

But Its a good things folks like yourself are not in charge of ancient history departments, because no one would be able to tell the difference between their ass and their elbow.

"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, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 02:21 PM by Astreja.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 01:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  ...{The Gospels are} as equal evidence as the koran, Nordic runes, the bhagavad Gita, the annals of Buddhism, oral legends still passed today, the book of mormon, the John from believers, the Egyptian books of the dead, etc.

If a belief system did not rely heavily on myth, or if it treated its myths as amusements rather than Immutable Truths™, IMO it would make for better philosophy. By relying on silly stories unique to each cult, literalist faiths are not doing their adherents any favours. They are pandering to the worst in humanity rather than the best -- in the case of Christianity in particular, promising followers an almost certainly bogus escape from death, coercing obedience to an invisible overlord, and raising faith to a dubious virtue rather than revealing it to be a snare for intellect and emotion.

The Gospels are simply not evidence that is up to my standards, and I refuse to lower that standard. I see no reason to accept a heap of supernatural crap pretending to be truth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 02:25 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 01:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Damn. It's a good thing the taxpayers don't pay me big bucks to be a scientist then. I'm lucky my worth is judged by other scientists and not data entry clerks. You're not a scientist. Any opinions you have regarding scientific evidence are clearly uninformed. As evidenced by your posts.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-12-2016, 02:25 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 02:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 01:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are not. The best scholars in the field say they are not. Y

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Quotes from the link you provided:

"The gospels are, first of all, extremely reliable historical documents for their own time and place. Mark tells us very much about, say, a community writing in the 70's. John, a community writing in the mid-90's."

In fact the term in question here, "evidence" appears twice in the link you provided, one in a question by the interviewer, replied to with the above quote by Crossan.

And the other here:

" I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way."

So quit trying to erect a strawman.

1. My argument is not a "strawman". Perhaps some day you will get an education and learn what that argument really is.

2. "The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about.

What they are evidence of is BELIEFS. Not about facts, but what people believed in.


Crossan says they are evidence about "communities", not about the *factualness* of what they believed. You can't even read.

"Mark tells us very much about, say, a community writing in the 70's. John, a community writing in the mid-90's. But, since we have four of them, we get four vectors, then, on the basic tradition that they're working with. What is common, we might be able to then work, by going back very carefully through those deliberate... what scholars call "redactional" elements in there. If Mark just made it up any old way, and Matthew did the same, we could not do anything historically with them."

"What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist. It is that Matthew is saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people." Now, there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult. He will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities' needs.
How significant and discrediting to belief are the differences between the four gospels?

For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. I have no problem with that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-12-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. My argument is not a "strawman". Perhaps some day you will get an education and learn what that argument really is.

It's whatever sort of arguments you trying to pin as one's I'm making, that are the strawmen.

Your resentments and emotions get the best of you, and cloud your basic comprehension of what's been said, and claimed. We've been through this before.

"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: