Arguments against Christianity

I do not understand the notion of different definitions of atheism. Do not all of them assume a Creator does not exist? Can you explain it to me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is all I ask of you. We both have beliefs that are not supported by science. Why do you take the belief that there is no Creator?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure what the "atheist gospel" is. I wasn't aware than any were written and would like to see a citation to this text.

As to the origin of the geographic discrepancy, I had, indeed, read it or heard of it elsewhere some time ago, but couldn't remember where. So, knowing that Mark was the older of the gospels, I read the relevant passages then looked at a map of Palestine.

If we look only at Mark, there is are geographic problems. Period. Say what you like, but you haven't resolved these. So, one of us *is* being disingenuous, but it's not me.

Now, if you'd like to look at other gospels, you'll start seeing additional discrepancies -Matthew's author changes the region. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that Matthew's author had a little better knowledge of Palestinian geography and realized it didn't wash. I'm sure he had no idea that his gospel would end up in a canonized edition alongside his source.

You have yet to resolve the discrepancies. But I'll provide a map and you tell me if the route makes sense. I left it open as to whether or not Jesus traveled around the east side or the west side of Galilee to reach Gerasa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Supposedly, Jesus stopped by Sidon on his way to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre. On his way?! I realize he didn't have to worry about the price of petrol, but how is Sidon on the way to Galilee from Tyre? Then he went to the region of the Garasenes. The Gerasenes were of Gerasa, which is easily 50k from Galilee. So even if we're generous and assume that the Garasenes somehow managed to have a "region" larger than the inhabitants of even the cosmopolitan cities of Tyre and Sidon, that still leaves us far, far from Galilee.

Either Jesus was ripped off when he booked his tour, or the author of Mark didn't have a good understanding of Palestinian geography. The latter is the most likely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Revolvr,

Try this thread that I started in 2003, it is referenced as part of the FAQ for this forum. This should help you see some of the controversy and confusion with the term. It is not as simple as you were hoping Im afraid.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

 

I guess you mean this:

Mark 7:31 Then Jesus went out again from the region of Tyre and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the region of the Decapolis.

Why is it odd he would go to Sidon? Perhaps he wanted to go there? Does Mark say he was in a hurry to get to Galilee? Note also the false statement in the original thesis. Nowhere does it imply Jesus was "on his way" just to Galilee. He's on a speaking tour, not a vacation. Also he was in the REGION of Tyre, that's all.

Regardless, Jesus may have walked on water but he didn’t fly like a bird. He would have followed the trading routes. Lets take a look.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hmmm, looks like the travel distance from Tyre to Galilee would have been about the same since he would have passed through Acco, particularly if he wanted to go through Hazor. Also what your map doesn't show is a mountain between Tyre and Galilee, but there is a mountain pass from Sidon. Why would you leave that important fact out?

Looks like Mark knew quite a lot about Palestinian geography. Are you really really sure you aren't uncritically accepting what others tell you because of a pre-conceived faith the Bible must be so wrong? Not very scientific is it?

 

SkinWalker, lets see if I can make your life easier for you.

You don’t believe the Bible is correct because it talks about man’s relationship with God, which you don’t believe in, and it talks about miracles, which you also don’t believe in.

Isn’t that enough for you? What do you care whether or not there are secular historical or geographic errors?

If I proved there were no historical or geographical errors, would you believe in God? I would guess not but do tell me if I’m wrong.

I can think of only two reasons you might be so focused on the non-theological aspects of the Bible. First, you could be insecure about your agnostic beliefs, or specific anti-Christian beliefs and so you need to validate them to reach some sort of comfort level. Second, perhaps you are trying to convince Christians that what they believe in is bunk – hence you are evangelizing which you claim not to be doing. This would also suggest insecurity.

We could go on and on like this – attack and counter, attack and counter ad nauseum. But frankly I’m getting a little bored with it. It will just waste a lot of time and in the end you will not shake my beliefs not any other Christian on this forum.

Please, do some introspection.

 

You really haven't addressed the primary point of the geographical problems with Mark. I'll give you the point about going to Sidon first. The Bekka Valley would be a sensible route to travel.

That isn't, however, the main point of contention. Traveling to Gerasa where he sent the 2k pigs into the Sea (after sending evil spirits into the pigs no less!), 50k away is a problem for the author of Mark.

I'm not so much asserting that Jesus didn't exist as I am that the so-called "witnesses" were nothing of the kind. At best, they penned variations of an oral tradition they heard. There is certainly more than enough room for doubt that biblical mythology is "divinely" inspired.

 

You claim that god exists. I doubt it.You must produce evidence to prove god's existence. That's the accepted way of doing things

 

There's a flip side to that Myles.

 

If you tell to me how to explain that something doesn't exist, I'll have a go. Think about it because your answer may undermine Western philosophy.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch house if someone claims that X exists, it is to be expected of him that he can support his claim with evidence. Why the reluctance to do so ?

 

Christianity has no greater problems than most religions. There are supernatural elements that can tend to seem silly to the non-believers. More significantly, one can find a way to justify almost anything under it. Both slave owners and abolitionists quoted it extensively, I've seen it used to suggest pacifism is the proper course and yet both the Crusades and "preemptive war" have been defended as consistent with the Bible's message.

I wouldn't say that its doctrines' innate malleability is an argument against it per se, but as a philosophical system it seems to me that the common acceptance of the supernatural elements of the religion are the only truly unifying theme.

 

The rip offs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Sun Gods:
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparsison_horus_jesus_chart.htm

Almost everything is plagiarized in bible except name Jesus whom are not mentioned
in any history text except in couple Roman ones and they are talking about Christ, the anointed one, no names mentioned. So if there were Jesus I bet he was no more God than our other holy prophets. Christianity is one big soup of myths.

 

the flip side is evidence is approached only by the qualified - evidence is not self evident

 

Clearly, those deluded by religious belief aren't qualified since they possess an inherent bias. Therefore, those that lack delusion of religious beliefs are most qualified to evaluate religious belief.

 

In 3 parts, proof that no god exists.

1) god has never provably done anything.
2) god has never provably contacted anytone.
3) god is impossible.

To explain:

1) In the real world, nothing can be attributed to god.
2) The bible is not trustworthy on any level so could not have been written or even inspired by god. People claim to have communed with god but even their fellow believers have no evidence of this.
3) Something that is impossible, like Santa Claus, fairies, god, pink elephants, etc must be proved. Only little children and delusioinal people accept such things without evidence.

 

Christians know that all the thousands of gods that were/are believed to have existed apart from their own god is a lie. They do not fear the muslim hell that allah threatens to send them to because they know beyond any doubt that allah does not exist.

Atheists just believe in one less god than most religionists.

 

The bible is full of errors and not backed up by science, history or even common-sense. Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" to see how the NT was put together. It's a real eye-opener.

So if we find that King Harold was not killed by being shot in the eye with an arrow, does anyone except historians care? There is not a shred of reliable evidence to show that Jesus even existed (apart from know christian forgeries) and yet people base their life on what is clearly a myth.

 

on the contrary, those who are atheistic display an incredible bias against normative/prescriptive descriptions in scripture

 

care to unpack that little gem there

not on any level?
sound like an absolute negative there

never encountered a normative/prescriptive description in scripture?

 

If there is a bias, it is to reason only. Should your "normative/prescriptive" scriptures be backed with independent evidence, then they are taken seriously as information. This is the case, for instance, when independent evidence supports the descriptions of clothing, food, or other cultural claims of scriptures. Supernatural claims, however, are mere mythology and have no basis in reason. Nor are there data which support their claims as facts about the real world: virgin births, zombie messiahs, and stopping the rotation of a planet are among these mythical claims -and only the truly deluded buy into these as prima facie.

Therefore, the deluded cannot be trusted to be considered qualified. Therefore, those without delusion are more qualified. It really has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism. It has to do with rational vs. irrational and the irrational lack the qualifications to accurately or adequately present their case since they rely on superstition and mythology to base their arguments.