Arguments against Christianity

SkinWalker said:
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.
Click to expand...
let me guess
anyone who applies prescriptive descriptions found in scripture and draws a positive experience from it should not be taken seriously
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.
Click to expand...
not sure what you are arguing here
that if you can't evidence something like the way you can evidence food distribution, it can't be evidenced at all?

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.
Click to expand...
since the issue of what is actually real and factual in this world is precisely the point of discussion, I don't think its noble of you to beg the question by glossing over these terms

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.
Click to expand...
in short, lodging a claim of delusion without a clear definition of reality is kind of like discussing algebra without a clear understanding of times tables
 
SnakeLord said:
Isn't that just a rather peculiar way of saying: "scripture is true because it says it is"?
Click to expand...
no
its a way of indicating the foundation for evidence
IOW one of the reasons there is no evidence for pink elephants is that there is no prescriptive descriptions for perceiving them (outside of the rhetorical arguments of atheists)
 
lightgigantic said:
and what would be the prescriptive requirements required to come to such a level of qualification?
(apart from agreeing with your values)
Click to expand...

I find that one of the bigger problems in discussing with many "Western" atheists is that their arguments against theism in general are formulated mainly in relation to a particular brand of Christianity - the kind of simplistic, blind-faith, threats-of-hellfire, kill-the-heathens brand of Christianity.
 
lightgigantic said:
in short, lodging a claim of delusion without a clear definition of reality
Click to expand...

Yes.

I have found that both those atheists as well as those theists who accuse their opponents of delusion, either refuse to produce a definition of "reality", brush the issue off as "philosophical angst that is a sham", or insist in their self-referential positions.

I think if those theists and atheists truly made an effort to understand their opponents -and thus ensure that the communication would be meaningful-, such effort to understand the opposing party would equal giving up their respective theistic or atheistic positions. Which of course they will not do, at least not within a foreseeable time.
 
its a way of indicating the foundation for evidence
IOW one of the reasons there is no evidence for pink elephants is that there is no prescriptive descriptions for perceiving them
Click to expand...

On what basis then can a person discriminate between scripture? IOW for what reason would you forego getting mummified even though the Book of the Dead expresses its importance for gaining an afterlife? Or, perhaps better asked, how do you go about ascertaining which scripture is the right one to look at?

You could say that one decides by looking at how many adherents it has or how many claimants to qualification there are. If we were to go by that then surely christianity would be the way to go?

Clearly therefore it can't come down to numbers.

The distinct problem here is that your general argument precludes you from saying anything until you are "qualified". As a result of that you have a lot of scripture to be going through. You can't, as per your argument, say anything about that scripture until you're qualified in it. And even then, if the end result is nothing you would need to ascertain that it is the scripture that is wrong and not just you that has applied the methods incorrectly. But as you'll argue, any high school dropout can claim he did study correctly, but that the thing he was studying was faulty.

You could listen to those that claim to be qualified but how do you establish that they are qualified, (when you are not and thus can't say anything)? I would assume that you'll try to argue emotional states, but that establishes nothing more than an emotional state. If a certain scripture mentions being free from wrath, and this person appears to be free from wrath, it merely establishes that this person is free from wrath, it does not attest to the validity of scriptural claims, (gods, heavens, souls or "zombie messiahs").

As an example: How would being free from certain emotional states indicate that "..no sooner had she ducked into the pond, than her husband turned her into a porpoise—she was the very first porpoise that ever swam in these waters." (Guiana Indians) this is true?

In short what does your 'normative descriptions in scripture" actually amount to? Being free from certain emotional states does not attest to the validity of the claims in that scripture in any way whatsoever. There is something seriously amiss here for you to contend that such a description is the "foundation of evidence" for anything other than an emotional state.

As a final bit of interest given your arguments I would like to mention the word 'evolution'. I have seen you whine about evolution a bit and so would like to ask what qualifications you have in relevant fields. Without qualifications, and given that it has evidence and "foundations of evidence", are you not being a complete hypocrite when talking about it negatively or demanding that science needs to do more to convince you?
 
SnakeLord said:
Isn't that just a rather peculiar way of saying: "scripture is true because it says it is"?
Click to expand...

I am going to say something that might come across as very offensive, yet it bears saying:

Why are you interested in these religious discussions, why do you take part in them?

Your intentions behind this will shape the way you interpret what other people say.
 
Why are you interested in these religious discussions, why do you take part in them?
Click to expand...

Cool, my turn on the couch.

Firstly I suppose I should state that I personally find the question quite redundant given my reflection that people do not make choices but instead follow inevitable paths based upon education, environment and genetics.

I happened to have an upbringing that many do not have. My original parents were scientologists, my grandparents were wiccans. I don't actually remember any of my life at that point though. Then I got fostered, some 7 times. I went from family to family, 'parent' to 'parent'. This inevitably makes me quite a hostile person. It is a protection mechanism from getting hurt based upon events of the past. My nature is my nature directly because of external events. You would be amazed at what passing through a total of 9 families, (7 fosters, 1 biological, 1 adopted), can print on a childs mind - especially when each of those families has their own set of beliefs that they try to pass on to you.

Whereas most people will hear 1 system of belief I got loads of them. This invariably led me to the question:

Which of these is right, (if any)?

Alas over the decades that question has never received a satisfactory answer and yet the question is an integral part of my makeup, an unavoidable part of who I am. As a result of that it is simply unavoidable that I have interest in the subject matter and debate it.

Thanks doc, how much do I owe you?
 
SnakeLord said:
Whereas most people will hear 1 system of belief I got loads of them. This invariably led me to the question:

Which of these is right, (if any)?
Click to expand...

How would you recognize which system of beliefs is the right one and which one is not?
By what criteria is this distinction to be made?
 
How would you recognize which system of beliefs is the right one and which one is not?
By what criteria is this distinction to be made?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

It would seem the answer to that differs from person to person. As far as I see it, one can never even get close without questioning.
 
But what are your criteria for recognizing which system of beliefs is the right one and which one is not?

You, after all, engage in these discussions. It would appear to be reasonable to have those criteria, and a goal - otherwise those discussions will possibly drag on forever, with no resolution.
 
But what are your criteria for recognizing which system of beliefs is the right one and which one is not?
Click to expand...

Who knows? The answer to that will arrive when I get there. As I tried to express earlier, one does not choose. Example: You cannot sit there and convince yourself to believe in leprechauns. You could squeeze yourself into a coma but nothing would actually change. It is not a choice, it is an inevitable outcome from external issues. In this case you would either see a leprechaun which causes you to 'believe' they exist or you are for some reason convinced by the argument of others.
 
SnakeLord said:
Who knows? The answer to that will arrive when I get there. As I tried to express earlier, one does not choose. Example: You cannot sit there and convince yourself to believe in leprechauns. You could squeeze yourself into a coma but nothing would actually change. It is not a choice, it is an inevitable outcome from external issues. In this case you would either see a leprechaun which causes you to 'believe' they exist or you are for some reason convinced by the argument of others.
Click to expand...

Have you thought about some meta-criteria that would help you to recognize which system of beliefs is the right one?

That is, instead of trying to decide whether, for example, Christianity is right or whether Islam is right, have you wondered about what a system of beliefs would have to be like in order to be "right"? What characteristics a system of beliefs would have to have in order to be "right"?
 
Speaking for myself here -

A system of beliefs that I would deem right, would have to have the following characteristics:

- The belief system should be such that I could act on it 24/7. It should be useful and applicable in everyday life.
- Applying the tenets of the belief system in my everyday life should ease my stress and suffering, and it should do so without my having to compromise my experiential, scientific and philosophical integrity.
- The belief system should provide me with a goal I find worthy of pursuing and one that is possible to achieve.
 
- The belief system should be such that I could act on it 24/7. It should be useful and applicable in everyday life.
- Applying the tenets of the belief system in my everyday life should ease my stress and suffering, and it should do so without my having to compromise my experiential, scientific and philosophical integrity.
- The belief system should provide me with a goal I find worthy of pursuing and one that is possible to achieve.
Click to expand...

Do any of these actually attest to the existence or non-existence of a certain entity?
 
My best argument against Christianity, against true Christianity? None.......but unfortunately Christianity has mutated over the years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top