Evidence AGAINST Christianity

[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.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, let's leave your points and my points out of this for now. I just want to know your interpretation of the bible regarding this "miraculous" event.


[/ QUOTE ]


I've never studied this particular question. If you can give me a good reason why you want to know, I will google it for you.

[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?

[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

[Lestat]

I had originally replied to txag007 (although I'm having a hard time figuring out who's replying to who any more with the format change).

He proclaimed that he was willing to go piece by piece through the bible and present rationale for a debate on why some of the more unlikely events contained therein are true and logical to believe.

As I understand it, he is a fundamentalist who takes every word literally. I thought they should start with the Tower of Babylon.

[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.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As I understand it, he is a fundamentalist who takes every word literally. I thought they should start with the Tower of Babylon.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to take up Tx's challenge. I was responding to what you apparently thought was an argument against the Bible. I don't want to go through each and every objection you can raise - many of them you can answer yourself as the questions have been addressed ad infinitum somewhere on the net. You still haven't said what your point is about Babylon - what is the argument against the Bible you want to make?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> You still haven't said what your point is about Babylon - what is the argument against the Bible you want to make? </font>

That it is clearly a much more logical conjecture to assume that different languages developed naturally through man's own faculties and his ability to invent such languages. We also inhabit different parts of the earth because we were nomads, not because God put us everywhere.

I also do not want to take on anyone else's debate. I don't think I have the stomach for some of the rationale I'd no doubt have to endure.

[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.