Evidence AGAINST Christianity

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm leaving town shortly and don't have the time to answer each one of these individually. However, you can find the answers to all these and more at http://www.tektonics.org/

Use the "Apolgetics Encyclopedia" at the top left.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for that link. I have not seen that website, or come across the technique of 'harmonization', before and found it very interesting.

I won't answer all of the 'harmonizations' individually as the general technique can be summed up and debunked:

1. Bible has contradiction where it says A in one place and B in another.
2. 'Harmonization' says that A is in fact equal to B or that a 'harmonious' C can be formed by joining A and B.

Unfortunately the suspension of logic and rationality required to equate A to B or join them together to form C is ridiculous. For example, they harmonize the differing numbers of beasts entering the ark as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is, seven. The phrase "two by two" in 7:9 simply means the animals entered the ark in pairs. So the beasts with 7 representatives came in as 3 pairs and 1 oddball each, paired off male and female and one spare wheel.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of three pairs and one 'oddball' is not from the Bible, it is something they have conjured out of thin air in a desperate attempt to smash a round peg into a square hole. They use similar techniques of fabrication, misdirection, and ignorance of Occam's Razor in all of their 'harmonizations'.

I would suggest that it is very difficult to have a worthwhile discussion with someone who truly believes that these intellectually dishonest maneuverings are valid rebuttals to the obvious mistakes and contradictions in the Bible.

[andyfox]

I don't think you've summarized David's case correctly. David has shown how logically clear thinking substantially diminishes the chance that Christianity is correct. This is not based on his opinions; rather his opinions are based on this logic.

On point 2, one thing I tried to point out in my two long posts on Christianity a while back, is that different people's religious beliefs throughout the world show a logical consistency with the circumstances of their geography, history, existence, and method of subsistence. This shows me that it is much more likely that their god was a result of their existence rather than the other way around.

[David Sklansky]

1. The smarter the person, the less likely he is to be a Christian.

2. Because the world's major religions believe share opposing beliefs, each is an underdog to be right.

These are powerful arguments against the specific beliefs of any religion. Name me ANY subject where the above two things apply where you would bet even money on one opinion against the field. I resort to those arguments a lot because I'm not knowledgeble about any religions specifics. When you claim that if I studied Christianity I would change my mind I can't prove you wrong because I'm not going to go to the trouble. But you are at least 99.999% to be wrong

However I can point to other anti religious evidence. For instance the fact that there has never been a well documented miracle. Or the fact that the universe works by complicated but logical mechanisms totally unneeded by a god who could "speak us into existence". etc. etc.

Remember that unlike the atheists on this forum, I say that God was the more rational choice up to about 100 years ago.

And if you really believe that the words of the bible are 100% true, does that mean that you think the Earth is 6000 years old?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]


Remember that unlike the atheists on this forum, I say that God was the more rational choice up to about 100 years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't disagree with this, though I'd probably push it back a little from 100 years. I'd be surprised if some of the other regular posters like Kid or Chez do.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Remember that unlike the atheists on this forum, I say that God was the more rational choice up to about 100 years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't disagree with this, though I'd probably push it back a little from 100 years. I'd be surprised if some of the other regular posters like Kid or Chez do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect DS will not be suprised that I disagree with this. My 'failure' to believe in god is not caused by anything that has happened in the last few hundred years.

It is simply not the case that there was evidence, to support a rational belief in god, that in recent years has been discredited. Rather there was never any evidence to support a rational belief in god.

Lack of an explanation is not a reason to believe an explanation that explains nothing.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. The smarter the person, the less likely he is to be a Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may or may not be right but that doesn't argue against Christianity. Theism is not an empirical science requiring esoteric knowledge. Becoming a Christian is not primarily a matter of the intellect or proving something through logic and reason. Salvation is not by intelligence.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Because the world's major religions believe share opposing beliefs, each is an underdog to be right.


[/ QUOTE ]


What does this mean?

[ QUOTE ]

Remember that unlike the atheists on this forum, I say that God was the more rational choice up to about 100 years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]


What specifically has occurred in the last 100 years to make Christianity less rational?

[ QUOTE ]

And if you really believe that the words of the bible are 100% true, does that mean that you think the Earth is 6000 years old?


[/ QUOTE ]

Please give chapter and verse where the Bible states the age of the earth.

[David Sklansky]

1. The smarter the person, the less likely he is to be a Christian."

"You may or may not be right but that doesn't argue against Christianity."

It argues agains Txaq007's stance.

"2.2. Because the world's major religions believe share opposing beliefs, each is an underdog to be right.

What does this mean?"

As I said, take ANY other subject with a myriad of different views where there is actually a correct answer. Would you ever bet even money, against the field. on a view held only by 20% of people and 10% of real smart people?

"Please give chapter and verse where the Bible states the age of the earth'

If it doesn't it doesn't. I was talking to Txaq007 anyway. Are you saying a literal interpretation (not counting figures of speech as you have pointed out) does not include (disregarding miracles) statements about the history of the earth (even disregarding evolution type stuff) that scientists are sure is incorrect?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It argues agains Txaq007's stance.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is debatable because it assumes a smart person would confess he's a sinner and trust in Christ. We've had the debate on bias before. Have you ever heard two experts, like those in handwriting analysis for instance, explain how absolutely certain each one is of exactly opposite positions? And the primary reason for the difference is bias. The existence of God and the state of one's soul is not a neutral subject. There is much in the Bible on this but even without that it's logical to believe that someone would try to convince himself it isn't true if he understands the consequences if it is and totally rejects those consequences.

[ QUOTE ]

As I said, take ANY other subject with a myriad of different views where there is actually a correct answer. Would you ever bet even money, against the field. on a view held only by 20% of people and 10% of real smart people?


[/ QUOTE ]

Similar to the above, if ulterior motives are involved the handicapping becomes very difficult.

[ QUOTE ]

statements about the history of the earth (even disregarding evolution type stuff) that scientists are sure is incorrect?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, that's different than saying the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. I think many scientists are sure the Bible is incorrect on some points, such as the flood, but they have not been able to demonstrate this certainty. I expect many are certain either the miralces, such as parting the sea, didn't happen or have a natural explanation. But they haven't so demonstrated.

[David Sklansky]

"As I said, take ANY other subject with a myriad of different views where there is actually a correct answer. Would you ever bet even money, against the field. on a view held only by 20% of people and 10% of real smart people?


Similar to the above, if ulterior motives are involved the handicapping becomes very difficult."

You know as well as I do that there is NO other subject where you would bet even money on any other minority viewpoint analogous to the one above. It is ridiculous to believe that ulterior motives would drive so many people away from the clear truth and in so many different directions (Islam, Taoism, atheism, Judaism, etc). Most people do want to know the truth. Scientist especially strive especially hard to eliminate ulterior motives in this quest.

This idea of yours that the "consequences" of your belif drive so many people away is ridculous. Other religions impose consequences as well. Even most atheists consider "being wrong" a consequence in itself. So they would believe, if the evidence logically impelled them to. Those who say that even if their was a god, they wouldn't worship him, are a minority.

[IronUnkind]

The six-day creation thing is in the actual text of Genesis. The young earth timeline is an extrapolation based upon geneologies. But one should note that even the most conservative "literalists" are not strictly so. A typical fundamentalist, for instance, would understand the eucharist as symbolic. And I have not met anyone who believed that mustard seeds are going to heaven.