Arguments against Christianity

But you conclude that existence of God means one is not responsible for his actions. I don't see how this is an argument against Christianity since Christians don't believe this. I am assuming you are trying to say Christians are not responsible for their actions? And I don't get the connection either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

answers,

My argument against Christianity.

No Christian can show that Christianity isn't just pure fantasy. And until that changes there is abolutely no reason to believe any of its claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So is your argument that because God forgives, I can do anything I want and not worry about it because I am forgiven?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you prove atheism isn't just pure fantasy and wishful thinking?

 

On the other hand, if there were proof that it were not true, Christianity would have died out a long time ago.

 

No.

 

Read my first post in this thread.

I am saying that if a person believes in a creator god, this person will ultimately not consider themelves responsible for their suffering and their happiness, and the suffering and happines of other people.

 

Your characterization of Ylooshi is inaccurate and ad hominem. Partially because you've not demonstrated that he "decided" to be dishonest and because you failed to note where I mentioned above that the original source of the information, as far as Ylooshi was concerned, was me. So, if there was any dishonesty, it couldn't have been him. I believe he attributes the information to me as well -or at least he does on his blog where he originally asked me if he could use it.

But on to your failed attempt to demonstrate "dishonesty."

You state above, that the difference is between Matthew and Luke, when it really isn't. Nor did I or Ylooshi state that it was. The differences are between Matthew and Mark - the latter being the older, and, thus, more reliable account if we take it for its literary value.

The Mark account has Jesus travel from the region of Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. This is, by no means, a logical route for someone traveling on foot. Indeed, the wording implies that Sidon is on the way to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre.

The Mark account also says, as you mention, that Jesus was in the region of the Gerasenes when he cast evil spirits into a herd of two thousand pigs that ran down a hill to drown. What body of water was present in the region of the Gerasenes that could drown 2k pigs? The implication is the Sea of Galilee.

The Matthew author, whoever he was, attempted to correct this in *his* gospel, which is based on the earlier Mark by moving the incident to the region of Gadera, which as you point out is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.

One is left to wonder why the much later author of Matthew had better knowledge than the earlier Mark author?

The conclusion of anyone conducting reasoned and objective analysis would arrive at is that Matthew's author sought to correct what he saw as an error in Mark's account. Mark's author was ignorant of Palestinian geography.

 

Answers,

If we were perfect why would we choose imperfection? Perfection implies we would have the perfect ability to make the correct choices, and since imperfection would appear to lead to death, i.e. not in our best interest, then such a choice would indicate we were not able to make a perfect choice, i.e. we could not have been perfect in the beginning.

One reason people make inappropriate choices is often through an absence of knowledge. If one does not understand the real consequence of jumping off a thousand foot cliff then they can hardly be held responsible for their action, especially if they were the first people on the planet and had no concept of death.

Punishment for a wrong action only makes sense if the doer has an adequate comprehension that the action is wrong. In reality we tend to only learn what is wrong by making mistakes or by someone with prior experience or authority explaining it to us.

Christianity is based on the fall of Adam and Eve being a true story since it was their alleged sinful actions that led to the downfall of man and hence led to the need for a savior. If the A and E is not a true story then the Jesus as a savior claim becomes a farce.

The problem with the A and E story is that they did not possess the knowledge of what it meant to do right or wrong BEFORE they had eaten the forbidden fruit that enabled them to understand right and wrong. It is only after they had eaten that they realized they should not have eaten – bummer – too late – catch 22 - a massive con-trick by God. But if they didn’t know it was wrong (absence of knowledge) then they should not have been held responsible for their actions, and hence no need for a savior, etc, etc.

But –

Well no that can’t be true if he is omniscient and knows what is going to happen in the future, e.g. all your alleged future choices are already known beforehand. In which case you really have no say or means to change what he knows you are going to do. In effect they are no longer choices but pre-determined actions that you are powerless to change. The very existence of something omniscient prevents free-will from being a reality, they are mutually exclusive paradigms.

What Christianity teaches is that you have free will but that God knows what you are going to do. This is a paradox – an impossibility. I.e. the Christian God cannot exist. Christianity has condemned itself through its own teaching.

 

Revolvr,

What do you mean? What is it you think is an atheist fantasy?

 

Revolvr,

So your justification for Christianity is not that it is true but that no one can prove your claims false.

That only gives two options to consider -

(1) Christainity is false.
(2) We don't know if it true or false.

What I think you need to do, if you ever hope for credibility, is to show Christianity is true. And no one to date has come close.

 

You believe God doesn't exist. Are you sure? How do you know? Do you have scientific evidence?

 

We evolved from basic cellular life that itself most likely evolved from simpler chemical systems. There is no reason to think a magic man did it.

 

Revolvr,
I'm disappointed that you didn't respond to my post, no. 48. Dou you think you can do so now ?

Thanks

 

Revolvr,

Oh I see, you are using that definition of atheism. Doesn't apply to me.

Yet in the end even if those types of atheists cannot prove their claims that doesn't leave you any closer to showing that your claims have any truth or that Christianity has any truth. It is also curious that you choose to cite an example of one group's inability to demonstarte a proof as somehow a justfication for your inability to prove your claims. You might just as well quote UFO enthusiasts who also cannot prove their claims as if somehow that has any relevance to your lack of evidence for your claims.

So do you have any evidence to support your apparent irrational claims or will you agree that all you have is just a valueless fantasy?

 

You are right. I apologize humbly to Ylooshi. I made an assumption about the originator of the "discrepancy".

The person who is being disingenuous is the originator of the so-called "discrepancy", which I assume is probably not you either. I imagine you un-critically picked it up from some poorly researched anti-Christian web site that has become part of the atheist Gospel.

Pay attention to what I wrote. First I added to your discrepancy by including not just Matthew and Mark, but Luke also. Then I show the dishonest part – that the Bible does not refer to these cities at all, but refers to regions.

Then I show why it isn't an issue, which still stands.

That’s 2 of the 3 “discrepancies”. You counter by re-explaining the third “discrepancy” which I made no mention of. I figure if the first two are dishonest, the third is too.

You really should examine your feelings and motivations. You aren't the average atheist who just cannot believe in a Creator. Your posts are laced with raw emotion, foul language, possibly even hatred. You take any criticism personally as ad hominem. I really don't think you are thinking clearly or objectively.