Evidence AGAINST Christianity

[txag007]

In other threads, I have expressed my belief that when evaluated objectively, evidence for Christianity makes it more likely to be true than other religions (or atheism). Much of the evidence is circumstantial, but the substantial amount that exists makes Christianity worth considering. This includes evidence that the universe was created, that the universe was designed, that the Bible is true, that Jesus existed, and that the Resurrection took place, just to name a few.

Meanwhile, Sklanksy continues to preach the opposite!

[ QUOTE ]
"I have no qualms with people believing whatever they want to believe, as long as they aren't forcing those beliefs on others or using their beliefs to hurt people."

For me not to have a problem requires also that they admit that objective evidence points away from their belief.


[/ QUOTE ]
I bring this up because the only evidence I've ever seen David present AGAINST Christianity is:

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.

3. Christians have a disease similar to stroke victims who can't accept the fact that they are paralyzed. Therefore, Christians are unable to evaluate evidence objectively.

This evidence is based on David's opinions derived from his perspective. Not once has he referenced a study or a reasonable analysis as to why this evidence is correct.

As for #2, the way to determine whose beliefs are more likely to be correct is to evaluate the specific evidence. The simple fact that different people might hold opposing beliefs does not necessarily mean that one is not correct. It could very well be that because other beliefs are so similar, one of them is correct while the others are just close.

[tolbiny]

"This includes evidence that the universe was created, that the universe was designed, that the Bible is true, that Jesus existed, and that the Resurrection took place, just to name a few."

You start off with a huge assumption that essentially is the fundemental gap between the arguing groups (yeah, i'm lumping everyone in either one camp or da other). If you accept these things to be true (or at least that the "evidence" supporting them is believable) then sure Christianity is a favorite (and a big stinkin' one at that). But you are starting with that assumption and working backwards, beginning with your acceptance of the evidence of these "truths". The other side doesn't believe in them. The evidence that the resurrection to place isn't even worthy of being called evidence in some people's opinions.

Evidence against is obviously a tricky business, as I know you don't have any evidence against the Chicken overlord theory.

I believe the correct process is to start from a blank slate, and Christianity assumes too much to start needing evidence against it.

BTW, there is lots of circumstantial evidence which I believe sufficient to discredit it. At each stage the church seems to back down or change its story, claiming something is now taken to be metaphorical rather than literal. Presumably if atheism could be proven, the church would say they knew all along that the God discribed in the Bible was a metaphorical reference to human spirituality and they never claimed he was a real entity.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I bring this up because the only evidence I've ever seen David present AGAINST Christianity is: </font>

You do not need to present evidence against something for which no realiable evidence exists in the first place.

<font color="blue">Not once has he referenced a study or a reasonable analysis as to why this evidence is correct. </font>

You are correct about this and I agree it would be helpful and productive to cite a reference before making such claims.

<font color="blue"> As for #2, the way to determine whose beliefs are more likely to be correct is to evaluate the specific evidence. </font>

There IS no specific evidence! You will run into some of the same problems with someone who believes in another God as an atheist will run into with you. That is, all he has to do is at some point force you to prove a negative. He will then use your inabililty to do so to justify his beliefs.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I bring this up because the only evidence I've ever seen David present AGAINST Christianity is:

You do not need to present evidence against something for which no realiable evidence exists in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sklanksy said (and I quoted in the OP) "objective evidence points away". And to answer your other point, the evidence for Christianity is abundant.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
This includes evidence that the universe was created, that the universe was designed, that the Bible is true, that Jesus existed, and that the Resurrection took place

[/ QUOTE ] This is laughable, the only one of these that points to xtainity is the Resurrection. And that seems pretty dubious.

[TomCollins]

Show me the evidence against the flying spaghetti monster. Clearly THAT must be true.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Show me the evidence against the flying spaghetti monster. Clearly THAT must be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I stated in another reply within this thread, Sklanksy said that "objective evidence points away [from Christianity]". I'm simply asking for that evidence.

As for your flying spaghetti monster, I'm going to assume from your post that you believe that God is simply some entity who was made up in the minds of men years ago. Am I right?

For this to be true, two questions would have to be answered in the affirmative:

1. Would such a fabrication be so demanding as the God of the Bible? The Biblical God is 100% holy and demands that we be as well. Living more morally than those around us is not enough to gain His acceptance.

2. Would most humans continue to believe in such a creature for their entire lives? Regardless of the specifics, most people believe in the existence of some type of a god. Sklansky says Christians have a disease about this, but even he says some type of God is plausible. We give up the idea of Santa Claus by age 10. Why do we hold on to the idea of God?

Undoubtedly, you will point out that the above questions "are not proof", and you're right. They aren't proof...by themselves. The possibility of a God, however, should lead you to look at the other evidence. The evidence for Christianity, as I stated earlier, is abundant.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Would such a fabrication be so demanding as the God of the Bible?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. The God of the Bible is absolutely the LAST God any sinner in his right mind would invent. The fact that people don't get this is proof of their bias and lack of knowledge of Christianity.

What God did DS invent? What God did Islam invent? What God did Mormonism invent? But an honest Christian will tell you that he can never take his salvation for granted and it's theoretically possible he is still under the wrath of the God he "invented"? Most of us aren't that stupid.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

The God of the Bible is absolutely the LAST God any sinner in his right mind would invent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two problems here. First, if you truly believe this, you must concede that God in the Bible is vindictive and cruel. If you believe the God in the Bible is graceful and wants you to go to heaven, you are lying with this statement. Second, an angry God who is willing to punish and demands your faith is exactly the first kind of God powerful monarchs and dictators would create.