Your best argument that Christianity is false

[chippy]

What's your best argument that Christianity is false?

Now, before you answer, I know how JREF works. They assume that Christians who ask questions such as these have some sinister motive or maybe want to "own" some of you guys in a debate.

I am only asking because I recently read some books in defense of Christianity that offer very compelling evidence. I just want to see what's on the other side of the coin.

Try not to be a bore by saying "use the search function".

[thaiboxerken]

My best arguments is as such:

Christianity has no credible evidence to support their notions that a god exists.

That's all there is, no other arguments are needed. All of those books you've read are full of fallacy, fabrication and pure nonsense. Feel free to provide evidence to prove me wrong.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

My best arguments is as such:

Christianity has no credible evidence to support their notions that a god exists.

That's all there is, no other arguments are needed.

I think that needs to be clarified. For example, it should be noted that having no credible evidence makes christianity indistinguishable from any other religion _that can be imagined_, which are limitless. Therefore, even if we conclude that "god exists" is more likely than "god doesn't exist" (which we can't do), then the chance that christianity is right is infinitesimally minute. It is almost certainly wrong.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm paraphrasing from an unknown party:

Faith cannot lead to facts.
Many people holding equally fervent belief also hold mutually exclusive positions.
Reason can lead to facts.
From mutually observable premises, a valid logical argument will lead anyone to the same conclusion.

Thus as Christianity relies on faith rather than reason, it should be rejected.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

My best arguments is as such:

Christianity has no credible evidence to support their notions that a god exists.

That's all there is, no other arguments are needed. All of those books you've read are full of fallacy, fabrication and pure nonsense. Feel free to provide evidence to prove me wrong.

There is also no credible that the Jesus of the New Testament ever existed. No christ=no christianity

[TuftedPuffin]

Well, here's the one I like:

Christianity posits an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Rational God. It also claims that if people do specific things this God will respond in certain, predictable ways.

Here's the problem: if God is omnipotent, then it is not only possible for him to change his own opinions, it is infinitely easy. God can make any given action the one he wants to take, and has no resistance whatsoever in doing so, so he has equal reason to undertake any given action. So even if God happens to have promised to send Christians to heaven and atheists to hell, and he's been doing that for the past 2000 years (both rather debatable), there's absolutely no guarantee he won't start turning Christians into swiss cheese. It's equally easy for that to make him happy as for anything else to. Thus, God is essentially unpredictable, and Christianity is futile.

I also like the "I have no need of that hypothesis" argument, as mentioned by thaiboxern. Also, whenever Christianity does attempt to make a falsifiable claim, it is promptly falsified.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Yaes, thaiboxerkan, that's the number one and what the argument boils down to. The rest is details.

I'll expand a bit and say that the bible describes events that definitely didn't happen, others that are physically impossible, and espouses some very strange (and false) views on cosmology, most as narrated by people who weren't present at the events they tell of. This makes the whole volume suspect as divinely inspired, to say the least.

Plus, you have a supposedly loving god who very seldomly acts the part and comes off as pretty schizophrenic. That, and he requires groveling and mock cannibalism of us in order to forgive us for being sinful ("bad") - the way he made us in the first place. In short, it's doesn't really make sense.

[six7s]

I am aware that one of the prime roles of a christian is to sell the idea to as many people as possible

So far (despite contact with many, many christians and a 'reasonable' amount of reading), I have yet to see any evidence (for any religion) that withstands even simple srutiny

Consequently, I strongly suspect that christianity and all of the others are false

Of course, I could be wrong

Originally Posted by chippy

...I recently read some books in defense of Christianity that offer very compelling evidence

Care to post some of this "compelling evidence"

[Apology]

It is not possible to have both a loving God and a God who intends to condemn the majority of people on earth to eternal damnation in hell. Either he's not loving, or we're not all going to hell. The fact that bad things happen to very good people tends to suggest that if there is a God, being loving is not one of his/her qualities.

[alfaniner]

The main point of Christianity is the "sacrifice" of Jesus. Dying for our sins, and all that.

But, he knew he was going to rise from the dead in three days. Sure, according to the story, he suffered through much tortuous treatment. But again, that was only for a short time. He knew he'd come back, and be worshipped for thousands of years just for doing that.

Hell, I'd do that. Where's the big sacrifice?

[chippy]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

The main point of Christianity is the "sacrifice" of Jesus. Dying for our sins, and all that.

But, he knew he was going to rise from the dead in three days. Sure, according to the story, he suffered through much tortuous treatment. But again, that was only for a short time. He knew he'd come back, and be worshipped for thousands of years just for doing that.

Hell, I'd do that. Where's the big sacrifice?

Are you a father or mother of a child? It doesn't matter if you are...if you had a child of your own, then watched that child get whipped 40 times with a sharp whip that tears away skin and eventually muscle, and watched your child have nails driven into his body, and then hung from a tree where the only part holding you up is the newly created hole in your hand, and hung there for hours...I imagine that would be a pretty gruesome thing to experience, something that qualifies to me as a "sacrifice".

[chippy]

Originally Posted by Apology

It is not possible to have both a loving God and a God who intends to condemn the majority of people on earth to eternal damnation in hell. Either he's not loving, or we're not all going to hell. The fact that bad things happen to very good people tends to suggest that if there is a God, being loving is not one of his/her qualities.

No, that fact simply suggests that God does not have complete control over his creation.

And I've seen a number of interpretations of hell that state that it is NOT a place of eternal suffering, but rather a place where you cease to exist. Since you think this is what's going to happen to you anyway when you die, then I wouldn't consider it such a bad thing. But when compared to the prospect of living forever in heaven, then yeah, hell would suck.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by chippy

Are you a father or mother of a child? It doesn't matter if you are...if you had a child of your own, then watched that child get whipped 40 times with a sharp whip that tears away skin and eventually muscle, and watched your child have nails driven into his body, and then hung from a tree where the only part holding you up is the newly created hole in your hand, and hung there for hours...I imagine that would be a pretty gruesome thing to experience, something that qualifies to me as a "sacrifice".

And you have evidence that this is what precisely happened? Believe it by all means and have faith in your religion, but don't put it forward as fact.

[chippy]

Originally Posted by six7s

I am aware that one of the prime roles of a christian is to sell the idea to as many people as possible

And what were you hoping to accomplish with this comment?

Quote:

So far (despite contact with many, many christians and a 'reasonable' amount of reading), I have yet to see any evidence (for any religion) that withstands even simple srutiny

Consequently, I strongly suspect that christianity and all of the others are false

Of course, I could be wrong



Care to post some of this "compelling evidence"

Why don't we start with Jesus' crucifixion? His crucifixion is attested to in the four gospels, as well as the writings of ancient historians Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and Mara Bar-Serapion, as well as the Talmud!

[joobz]

Originally Posted by chippy

Are you a father or mother of a child? It doesn't matter if you are...if you had a child of your own, then watched that child get whipped 40 times with a sharp whip that tears away skin and eventually muscle, and watched your child have nails driven into his body, and then hung from a tree where the only part holding you up is the newly created hole in your hand, and hung there for hours...I imagine that would be a pretty gruesome thing to experience, something that qualifies to me as a "sacrifice".

But if we are going to keep the analogy accurate,
the father had set up the entire situation so that the "son" had to go through all of that.

And if I remember, god has a thing about asking fathers to kill their sons.

No, I see no sacrifice here, only sadism.

ETA: I never realized the true horror that the christian god is until my son's birth.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by chippy

Are you a father or mother of a child? It doesn't matter if you are...if you had a child of your own, then watched that child get whipped 40 times with a sharp whip that tears away skin and eventually muscle, and watched your child have nails driven into his body, and then hung from a tree where the only part holding you up is the newly created hole in your hand, and hung there for hours...I imagine that would be a pretty gruesome thing to experience, something that qualifies to me as a "sacrifice".

Gruesome certainly, but nothing was actually sacrificed. Sacrifice entails loss. According to Christianity, Christ was not lost.

[TuftedPuffin]

Originally Posted by chippy

Are you a father or mother of a child? It doesn't matter if you are...if you had a child of your own, then watched that child get whipped 40 times with a sharp whip that tears away skin and eventually muscle, and watched your child have nails driven into his body, and then hung from a tree where the only part holding you up is the newly created hole in your hand, and hung there for hours...I imagine that would be a pretty gruesome thing to experience, something that qualifies to me as a "sacrifice".

Wait...so it's Mary's sacrifice? That's a view I haven't heard before...

[slingblade]

Your best argument that Christianity is false:

It doesn't work. Nothing it promises ever happens. That's my reason.

[chippy]

Originally Posted by lionking

And you have evidence that this is what precisely happened? Believe it by all means and have faith in your religion, but don't put it forward as fact.

Well you are talking about claims made by Christianity, particularly the Christian claim that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. Why do you give credence to the Christian claim of sacrifice, but not to the claim of how Jesus suffered?

Besides, the method of crucifixion is not only described in the bible. Remember, Jesus is not the only person that the Romans crucified. 6,000 followers of Spartacus were crucified, so if the details of crucifixion as they relate to some Christian thing doesn't sit well with you, then read about how those 6,000 were crucified, and then imagine a child of yours suffering the same way in front of your eyes. I believe the point remains.

[quixotecoyote]

You do have a unique interpretation. Every other Christian I've met says it was Christ's sacrifice, not Mary's.

[chippy]

Originally Posted by TuftedPuffin

Wait...so it's Mary's sacrifice? That's a view I haven't heard before...

I suppose it would also be Mary's sacrifice. But primarily, it was God's sacrifice, seeing as how He was Jesus' father.

By the way, is this just a semantic argument when talking about whether it was a "sacrifice"? Maybe it was a sacrifice, and maybe it wasn't. But I think it's quite a stretch to devalidate Christianity because of the inappropriate use of the word "sacrifice".

[joobz]

Originally Posted by chippy

Well you are talking about claims made by Christianity, particularly the Christian claim that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. Why do you give credence to the Christian claim of sacrifice, but not to the claim of how Jesus suffered?

Besides, the method of crucifixion is not only described in the bible. Remember, Jesus is not the only person that the Romans crucified. 6,000 followers of Spartacus were crucified, so if the details of crucifixion as they relate to some Christian thing doesn't sit well with you, then read about how those 6,000 were crucified, and then imagine a child of yours suffering the same way in front of your eyes. I believe the point remains.

I think the challenge is to prove that christ was, indeed, real. I'm unfortunately not versed in the details, but it seems that the existence of Jesus is far from proven.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by chippy

I suppose it would also be Mary's sacrifice. But primarily, it was God's sacrifice, seeing as how He was Jesus' father.

By the way, is this just a semantic argument when talking about whether it was a "sacrifice"? Maybe it was a sacrifice, and maybe it wasn't. But I think it's quite a stretch to devalidate Christianity because of the inappropriate use of the word "sacrifice".

Well, it makes a difference when you substitute sadistic in for sacrifice.

[chippy]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

You do have a unique interpretation. Every other Christian I've met says it was Christ's sacrifice, not Mary's.

No, I am saying it was GOD'S sacrifice.

And what a Christian says about Christianity DOES NOT necessarily represent what Christianity is all about. If I said that Christianity meant painting Donkeys purple on Sunday, and then you proved that this doesn't help Christianity, would that devalidate Christianity?

We need to tie in the use of the word "sacrifice" into Christianity before we can judge whether this argument can be used against Christianity. Otherwise, what good are we doing by tossing around a word that some people are using?

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by chippy

I suppose it would also be Mary's sacrifice. But primarily, it was God's sacrifice, seeing as how He was Jesus' father.

By the way, is this just a semantic argument when talking about whether it was a "sacrifice"? Maybe it was a sacrifice, and maybe it wasn't. But I think it's quite a stretch to devalidate Christianity because of the inappropriate use of the word "sacrifice".

Now you run into trinity issues.... But as God is god and supposedly loves everyone, one more crucifixion shouldn't have been a big deal, especially with the payoff afterwards the Jesus got.

But don't you get the whole point of the crucifixion story? It's a variant on the old testament one about putting a communities' sins on a sacrificial animal and then destroying the animal to destroy the sin. Jesus was supposed to be the perfect sacrifice, but without him actually being sacrificed, the story doesn't work.

eta It can't be god's sacrifice because god didn't lose anything. He saw one more crucifixion of someone he is said to love out of the millions of horrible deaths he'd already seen. He remained a god, Jesus ascended back to full godhood, nothing was actually sacrificed.

[TuftedPuffin]

Originally Posted by chippy

I suppose it would also be Mary's sacrifice. But primarily, it was God's sacrifice, seeing as how He was Jesus' father.

By the way, is this just a semantic argument when talking about whether it was a "sacrifice"? Maybe it was a sacrifice, and maybe it wasn't. But I think it's quite a stretch to devalidate Christianity because of the inappropriate use of the word "sacrifice".

So this is what I don't understand: if it was God's sacrifice in some sense of the word, why did he do it? After all, the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice was, as I understand it, to forgive mankind their sins. Why would God have to hurt himself to forgive people?

Edit: Oh, and if you get the chance, try addressing my argument earlier in this thread. I think it's a good one.

[chippy]

Originally Posted by joobz

I think the challenge is to prove that christ was, indeed, real. I'm unfortunately not versed in the details, but it seems that the existence of Jesus is far from proven.

According to the book I read, even secular historians admit that Jesus was crucified, that the disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and that Paul and James were converted to Christianity based on the resurrection event.

[joobz]

reading these posts:
What are the best arguments against christianity?
Arguments for christianity.

[chippy]

Originally Posted by TuftedPuffin

So this is what I don't understand: if it was God's sacrifice in some sense of the word, why did he do it? After all, the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice was, as I understand it, to forgive mankind their sins. Why would God have to hurt himself to forgive people?

That's a good question. My guess would be that it's an everlasting symbol that makes an extremely strong impression on people. The fact that a man endured an agonizing death that he didn't deserve is a much stronger impression than writing a few words in a book that says "hey, I'll forgive you if you do something bad!"

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by chippy

That's a good question. My guess would be that it's an everlasting symbol that makes an extremely strong impression on people. The fact that a man endured an agonizing death that he didn't deserve is a much stronger impression than writing a few words in a book that says "hey, I'll forgive you if you do something bad!"

Thousands have died worse deaths with less justification. Why should Jesus's death be especially significant?

[chippy]

Originally Posted by TuftedPuffin

Well, here's the one I like:

Christianity posits an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Rational God. It also claims that if people do specific things this God will respond in certain, predictable ways.

Here's the problem: if God is omnipotent, then it is not only possible for him to change his own opinions, it is infinitely easy. God can make any given action the one he wants to take, and has no resistance whatsoever in doing so, so he has equal reason to undertake any given action. So even if God happens to have promised to send Christians to heaven and atheists to hell, and he's been doing that for the past 2000 years (both rather debatable), there's absolutely no guarantee he won't start turning Christians into swiss cheese. It's equally easy for that to make him happy as for anything else to. Thus, God is essentially unpredictable, and Christianity is futile.

I also like the "I have no need of that hypothesis" argument, as mentioned by thaiboxern. Also, whenever Christianity does attempt to make a falsifiable claim, it is promptly falsified.

Can't the same argument be made about your boss at work? Sure, he says you're doing a good job and hasn't fired you, but you don't know how his mind works. How do you know he won't save the company some money and fire you? He has complete power over your job. If he decides you're fired, then you're fired.

But here's the problem...I'm guessing you still work at your job, even with this threat!

[TuftedPuffin]

Originally Posted by chippy

That's a good question. My guess would be that it's an everlasting symbol that makes an extremely strong impression on people. The fact that a man endured an agonizing death that he didn't deserve is a much stronger impression than writing a few words in a book that says "hey, I'll forgive you if you do something bad!"

So he sacrificed his son for...the publicity?

[Jimbo07]

It's predictable that Chippy is only arguing the points that seem to speak to Christianity in religious terms.

It's sad to see 'skeptics' putting forward arguments like

Quote:

The main point of Christianity is the "sacrifice" of Jesus. Dying for our sins, and all that

(sorry alfaniner, yours was the one I glommed on to)

These sorts of pseudo-religious arguments are meaningless. We can spin our wheels in the realm of apologetics for days.

So...

Originally Posted by Chippy

What's your best argument that Christianity is false?

There is only ONE argument...

Show us this compelling evidence.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by chippy

Originally Posted by six7s

I am aware that one of the prime roles of a christian is to sell the idea to as many people as possible

And what were you hoping to accomplish with this comment?

My statement simply created a context for what followed

Originally Posted by six7s

So far (despite contact with many, many christians and a 'reasonable' amount of reading), I have yet to see any evidence (for any religion) that withstands even simple scrutiny (sic )

Originally Posted by chippy

Originally Posted by six7s

Care to post some of this "compelling evidence"

Why don't we start with Jesus' crucifixion? His crucifixion is attested to in the four gospels, as well as the writings of ancient historians Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and Mara Bar-Serapion, as well as the Talmud!

If this is your "compelling evidence", I am embarrased yet again to have been taken in by yet another snake-oil salesman

Originally Posted by chippy in the OP

I am only asking because I recently read some books in defense of Christianity

Now be honest... wasn't that phrased to imply that you had read some new books with some new evidence?

If so, this thread is just another waste of bandwidth, akin to the wasted papyrus of old

[chippy]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Thousands have died worse deaths with less justification. Why should Jesus's death be especially significant?

Because it was punctuated by his resurrection! How many people rose up from the dead after they died?

[chippy]

Originally Posted by TuftedPuffin

So he sacrificed his son for...the publicity?

If people are becoming increasingly sinful, how else can He straighten them out other than using publicity?

[rsaavedra]

With all due respect, the so called sacrifice of the son of god, besides the point of being omnisciently staged as others point out, just doesn't hold as obviously beneficial to many people throughout history, people who have suffered all sorts of injustices and/or misfortunes in their lives, and/or in the lives of their loved ones, in many cases because of nothing related to their religious beliefs.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by chippy

Because it was punctuated by his resurrection! How many people rose up from the dead after they died?

Before I respond please recognize that I am arguing in terms of the story, similar to arguing how gay Dumbeldore is.

You have backtracked off the significance of the suffering. How many people have rose up from the dead without a painful death? You realize that the resurrection puts lie to any claims of sacrifice?

[chippy]

Originally Posted by six7s

If this is your "compelling evidence", I am embarrased yet again to have been taken in by yet another snake-oil salesman

Well rather than coming up with clever comments like those, why don't you post refuting evidence showing these writings to be unreliable?

[TuftedPuffin]

Originally Posted by chippy

Can't the same argument be made about your boss at work? Sure, he says you're doing a good job and hasn't fired you, but you don't know how his mind works. How do you know he won't save the company some money and fire you? He has complete power over your job. If he decides you're fired, then you're fired.

But here's the problem...I'm guessing you still work at your job, even with this threat!

He's not omnipotent. A human boss can't change his judgment, his morals, or the value of my job (nonexistent in this case, but I'll keep with your analogy). I trust my boss not to fire me because I'm of value to the company and he's a caring person who wouldn't do that, and neither of those factors are under his control. God on the other hand could make my job worthless, make himself hate my guts, and make the most pleasurable and moral thing for him to do be firing me. And he could do this just as easily as any other action of any sort whatsoever.