Arguments against Christianity
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
No, what the moderator said (via PM) was that the thread should not become a soapbox for your preaching, otherwise it will be deleted.
Yes but if someone argues a religious point then I will answer using religious text which you said to me was preaching. So how can you ask a religious question without giving a religious reply? So if arguments could instead be based on science, or history, or logic, etc... that would avoid any problems you might have.
Good point. In that case, *one* of my chief complaints with Christianity is that there is no evidence to support its doctrine. Please show how Christian beliefs are at least potentially falsifiable or show evidence (which would be independent of biblical mythology, of course) that core beliefs of Christian doctrine(s) is(are) based in reality and not superstition or the supernatural.
Many people here are atheists. When you ask for arguments against Christianity, they will argue against any belief in God. The arguments would apply to any religion. that's done so often here it would get boring.
More interesting would be to say, If there is a God, would Christianity best reflect that God or would some other religion? But then we get in to comparative analysis, leading to which religion is "best". This would probably get shut down by our omnipotent moderator.
But what we could do is develop a set of criteria for what a good religion would be like, based on our assumptions of what God must be like, and assuming a God exists, without actually talking about any religion in particular.
We could therefore define the criteria for a "real" religion. For example:
A real religion would generally believe in peace, kindness and cooperation among all people even those who are non-believers.
and so on...
Then we could leave it to readers to decide which religion, if any, best fit that criteria.
More interesting would be to say, If there is a God, would Christianity best reflect that God or would some other religion? But then we get in to comparative analysis, leading to which religion is "best". This would probably get shut down by our omnipotent moderator.
But what we could do is develop a set of criteria for what a good religion would be like, based on our assumptions of what God must be like, and assuming a God exists, without actually talking about any religion in particular.
We could therefore define the criteria for a "real" religion. For example:
A real religion would generally believe in peace, kindness and cooperation among all people even those who are non-believers.
and so on...
Then we could leave it to readers to decide which religion, if any, best fit that criteria.
You just described Jainism. The only religion I'm aware of that, the more extremist you become within, the less violent you become.
Let me propose some other criteria:
Non-believers would not be considered second class, or subjugated to believers.
It would support and encourage scientific thought and exploration.
It would promote moral behavior but allow free will so that people were not subject to all kinds of rules and laws governing all aspects of behavior.
It would be monotheistic.
Believers might evangelize but not be supremacist working toward world domination.
Non-believers would not be considered second class, or subjugated to believers.
It would support and encourage scientific thought and exploration.
It would promote moral behavior but allow free will so that people were not subject to all kinds of rules and laws governing all aspects of behavior.
It would be monotheistic.
Believers might evangelize but not be supremacist working toward world domination.
Could that scientific thought and exploration include the deity of this hypothetical religion (you did say monotheistic)?
I added monotheistic because it seems this hypothetical religion would not have unnecessary complexity. Adding more Gods means we need a rationale for what these Gods represent, and for not having Gods to represent other things. Then we need a way for some master God that created everything to create the other Gods. This could get messy so I propose 1 God for this religion. KISS it.
I am not sure I understand your other question. Certainly scientific investigation would look into creation. This hypothetical religion would need some explanation for why we got here and how. That is, humanity would have to have some purpose or reason for existence.
I was asking, because it seems that if its a given that a single god exists, then we must allow for the possibility of multiple gods. Indeed, if we're allowing that this hypothetical god is a creator god, then it stands to reason that anything sufficiently complex enough to create a universe would have to have an equally or more complex creator for itself, and so on into infinite regression.
Furthermore, if we allow that this hypothetical god is omniscient, omnipotent, and so on with the other qualities traditionally assigned to gods, then it follows that there must be some evidence of this god having a hand in our universe, which makes this god/deity a potential subject of study by science. I realize that you haven't yet made arguments for such qualities in this hypothetical god, but I'm about to leave for work and wanted to make leave that food for thought first.
My final questions would be that if we assume such a single, creator god without any good reason to suggest that one exists, could it be that we're assuming qualities of this god without its consent or approval? What if we're wrong?
Or, if we assume that there probably isn't a god to whom we can make assumptions about but interject one simply because it completes the religion, giving it a purpose or point (because its "god's will," "god's creation," "divine expectation," etc.), would we not be creating a lie? And isn't truth more important than creating a religion that is false, yet provides for the overall betterment of the world? That last is an interesting dilemma and this is actually something I've pondered more than once.
Furthermore, if we allow that this hypothetical god is omniscient, omnipotent, and so on with the other qualities traditionally assigned to gods, then it follows that there must be some evidence of this god having a hand in our universe, which makes this god/deity a potential subject of study by science. I realize that you haven't yet made arguments for such qualities in this hypothetical god, but I'm about to leave for work and wanted to make leave that food for thought first.
My final questions would be that if we assume such a single, creator god without any good reason to suggest that one exists, could it be that we're assuming qualities of this god without its consent or approval? What if we're wrong?
Or, if we assume that there probably isn't a god to whom we can make assumptions about but interject one simply because it completes the religion, giving it a purpose or point (because its "god's will," "god's creation," "divine expectation," etc.), would we not be creating a lie? And isn't truth more important than creating a religion that is false, yet provides for the overall betterment of the world? That last is an interesting dilemma and this is actually something I've pondered more than once.
The worst thing about Christianity is it teaches blind faith rather than inquiry and reason.
That's not Christianity as it exists now, that is the legend of it's foundation.
Nor could one call the gospels eyewitness accounts since none are conclusively dated to the period in which the authors could have been eyewitnesses. There are also sufficient literary problems with the gospels that indicate that the authors weren't eyewitnesses or primary sources, such as the geographical problems mentioned in another thread, differences in genealogies, inconsistencies with the post crucifixion days surrounding the tomb, etc.
Mary felt that the resurrection was more a personal spiritual revelation, not zombiefication.
Yeah but it's still the deed itself, whatever state it's currently in.
Who's talking zombification?
"Jesus? Is that you?"
"Brains!"
"Aaargh!"
Those are questions I'll simply have to get back to once I have time. The thread in question is recent, however. I remember because Ylooshi asked me if he could use the information I posted in a much older thread. Search for Ylooshi's recent posts and you'll find it (the geography information -basically, one of the gospel writers got the geography of the region around the Sea of Galilee completely wrong).
I'll come back to this in a future post.
I'll come back to this in a future post.