What is the best evidence against Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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.

Ah huh.

"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, 02:48 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Prove it. And then prove the same person "Paul" wrote them.
The writings of Paul and Acts are extremely contradictory. They can't both be true.

Quote: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.

They are not the same. At ALL. Statements by believers in a new cult are in no way similar to other writings.

Quote: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.

Ah yes. Always the insults at atheists. Why are you here again ?

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
28-12-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nearly all of the written sources we have from that period, are not eye-witness accounts

None of the other writings from that period claim a god was born and walked on water so it doesn't matter much if they're not eyewitness accounts. There's no actual evidence that Alexander the Great existed either, but we're not being threatened eternal hell if we don't believe Alexander didn't exist nor are we pressured to go to Alexander the Great Churches. If we were told to believe Alexander the Great was a god you'd bet your sweet ass I'd want diamond hard evidence that he was a god.

If you claim a god was walking around this earth you better provide first hand, eyewitness accounts and outside, unbiased evidence for such a claims otherwise it's just one of the many prolific, invented myths humans have created.

Quote: Not being eye-witness accounts doesn't rule them out from being evidence

Yes it does. It's not only NOT eyewitness accounts, we have no originals of these non-eyewitness accounts. We have hand copies of hand copies of hand copies etc....and the first people to copy the letters weren't professional scribes, that didn't happen until the 3rd century.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove it. And then prove the same person "Paul" wrote them.

You prove that historians and scholars who agree on the authentic books of Paul are wrong.



Quote:They are not the same. At ALL. Statements by believers in a new cult are in no way similar to other writings.

Again strawmen. The only claim I made above was that a text not being an eye-witness account, doesn't negate it from being evidence. Not that all text that are not eye-witness accounts are equivalent.

Quote:Ah yes. Always the insults at atheists. Why are you here again ?

I just insult you and Chas for being you and Chas, not because you're atheist. Just like I don't imagine that your low opinion of me, or insults directed at me, are the result of me being brown.

"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, 03:17 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You prove that historians and scholars who agree on the authentic books of Paul are wrong.

You appealed to Paul. That's YOUR job. YOU brought him up, and anyone who's read Acts knows they can't both be true.

Quote:Again strawmen. The only claim I made above was that a text not being an eye-witness account, doesn't negate it from being evidence. Not that all text that are not eye-witness accounts are equivalent.

You fucking MISSED the point. Texts by BELIEVERS about a subject, eyewitnesses or not, are not reliable. (And again, it's not a "strawman". Look it up.)

Quote:I just insult you and Chas for being you and Chas, not because you're atheist. Just like I don't imagine that your low opinion of me, or insults directed at me, are the result of me being brown.

Uh huh. That's why you're always talking about "atheists this and atheists that". And that's exactly what I thought. You liar. YOU just raised the question of race. I've always known you think that. But then YOU were the first to insult "categories" here now, weren't you.

Why are you here again ?

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
28-12-2016, 03:31 PM
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.

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.

Come on Tommy, you dodged again. You made the claim that the empty tomb's most likely explanation was resurrection. Now when asked to show that exact thing you run away? For shame. Reminds me of the time you claimed that atheism was a religion Laughat Fuck you're useless.

Oh by the way, which university and what topic did you get your PhD in? Was it perchance theology?

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, 03:40 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Nope. That's not actually what a strawman is. I KNEW you didn't really know. You just don't even know what you're actually saying, and the only thing that's "clouded" is your mind by your bias (faith).

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
28-12-2016, 03:42 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 02:53 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  None of the other writings from that period claim a god was born and walked on water so it doesn't matter much if they're not eyewitness accounts. There's no actual evidence that Alexander the Great existed either, but we're not being threatened eternal hell if we don't believe Alexander didn't exist nor are we pressured to go to Alexander the Great Churches. If we were told to believe Alexander the Great was a god you'd bet your sweet ass I'd want diamond hard evidence that he was a god.

And you’d be wrong, you take any revered or significant political or religious figure at the time, and what you’ll find in the accounts of their lives, is a variety of fanciful, and often miraculous attributes. Such as Alexander and Ceaser’s miraculous births, etc…. The sort of value we place on literal historical accounts, is more or less a modern phenomena, where in the past the value was placed on the meaning that can be derived from an account, rather than literal history.

But it’s interesting that you brought up hell fire. That if we had churches devoted to Alexander, threats of hell fire to those who didn’t accept Alexander as God, that this would motivate Alexander denialism. One thing interesting about those who deny the existence of Jesus, is that they often forget the early forefathers of this movement, like Kersey Grave, Archaya X, who basically peddled a variety of lies such as savior deity comparisons, for the sake of denialism. That these individuals were so taken back by the threat of Christianity, their resentment towards it, led them to sell carefully crafted lies in support of denialism, to undermine it.

There’s something more psychological than rational when it comes to denialist position, that carried over from past to the present. Its driven more by one’s resentment, and contempt for christianity than anything else. If it wasn’t for this psychological factor, they likely wouldn’t be questioning the existence of Jesus at all, and would be accepting of the overall historical outlook. A psychological phenomena shared in common with other denialist, holocaust denying muslims, 9/11 truthers etc…

Quote:Yes it does. It's not only NOT eyewitness accounts, we have no originals of these non-eyewitness accounts. We have hand copies of hand copies of hand copies etc....and the first people to copy the letters weren't professional scribes, that didn't happen until the 3rd century.

When the hand copies of hand copies of hand copies spread out across a vast geological space, and show a great deal of congruency amongst them, that congruency is worth a lot in terms of historical informations. A lack of congruency is what spells trouble,

But again this can be said of pretty much every ancient historical documents at the time, that we rarely have the original, just copies of copies of the originals. Sometimes you don’t even have that just quotes from originals in other writings, etc…

"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, 03:44 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 03:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-12-2016 02:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Nope. That's not actually what a strawman is. I KNEW you didn't really know. You just don't even know what you're actually saying, and the only thing that's "clouded" is your mind by your bias (faith).

That's literally what a strawman is:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

-Wikipedia.

"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, 03:48 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(28-12-2016 03:31 PM)morondog Wrote:  Come on Tommy, you dodged again. You made the claim that the empty tomb's most likely explanation was resurrection. Now when asked to show that exact thing you run away? For shame. Reminds me of the time you claimed that atheism was a religion Laughat Fuck you're useless.

Oh by the way, which university and what topic did you get your PhD in? Was it perchance theology?

I pointed out that atheists such as yourself don't deal in most likely explanation, hence your lack of one. If that's not the way your personal thought process works, thinking in terms of competing conclusions and explanations, then there's no point in arguing about most likely explanations, because it wouldn't register.

In order to have such a discussion you'd have to have a competing explanation of your own. But thats not how your thinking here works.

"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: