"9. Perhaps one of the more galling arguments put forth by Christian apologists is that of morality, claiming that the existence of morality is proof of their god."
When we are done ridiculing each other's beliefs - so if I disprove your argument nr 6 and your second argument, do I win disproval of number 9?
Morality _is_ natural, even if it has been created by God.
How does it disprove?
"10. The least moral Christian teaching, however, is the requirement of faith to avoid Hell. I hope I need not explain more than to point out that some people, such as myself, are apparently incapable of holding a conviction without evidence. Why would a god make me this way, then doom me to eternal torment for being this way?"
Bad point, bad argument. It'd be an honour to have it explained, cite or something please.
Until I get an answer, I shall only say : It requires faith because of nature of God.
If religion named "Randomigion" was based on _knowledge_ not _faith_ what would it be?
We all knew God existed, thus we all because of _fear_ of going to hell became "Randomigion believers" and stayed this way, crumbling and dying while thinking if we did something against our God.
But we (at least I am) are Christians of Christianity. We know we require faith because of not knowing of God's Power and Might we have _free will_ and _love_ that we can display to others. We can believe or not. Also - Jesus said we all have been saved. But we still have to learn the love the way it truly and really is.
"11. This leads nicely to one of my other problems. If the Christian God were real, if He were omniscient, omnipotent, and wanted me to join Him in Heaven when I die, and if believing in Him was the first requirement for that, wouldn’t He give me everything I need to believe? And yet, I find absolutely no evidence, not evidence a convincing argument. I simply cannot believe, and if the Christian god were real, I would."
Well, this argument is based on same concept as number 10, so my answer applies here as well.
"12. Indeed, it is difficult to tell that all Christians believe in the same god. There are so many disagreements between the over 40,000 denominations that one is forced to wonder how all-powerful that god could be. After all, I could probably write a book that is interpreted fewer than 40,000 different ways; why couldn’t god do that with the Bible?"
Because of translation errors and way the languages change, we get other tenths of 9,000 different ways and wording of "Jesus walks on the water".
"13. The most classic reason to doubt Christianity is the problem of evil. I simply cannot believe that an all-loving being is watching over a world wherein child rape exists. I differentiate this from the problem of suffering, in that I could accept that some suffering is necessary even with an all-loving and all-powerful God in charge, but the unnecessary and ceaseless suffering of countless innocents in natural disasters worldwide is simply too much. Tsunamis, hurricanes, child cancer, parasites that eat a lamb’s brain as it slowly dies… how can anyone look at that and still believe in a loving deity capable of stopping such monstrosities?"
"14. I have one last historical argument. The character of Jesus in the gospels is possibly fictional, and certainly not as miraculous as described. Historical consensus is that the man did exist, but there are compelling arguments that he was a myth who was historicized, much like Hercules. In any case, most historians see all the contradictions among the various gospels as evidence that many of the events described never happened. Indeed, very little is left. However, this is an argument I am stil...
Let me try. Because you like Wikipedia, so will I. But i'll be cropping your arguments if they are too long, I will still answer the whole, original "argument". Please realise, though, that this is not answered by a priest nor scholar, but a believing student that shares his point of view on "common sense".
i'll also accent words by _underscoring_ not CAPSING because it focuses way nicer.
Dear erisblastar
"1. My first reason for losing belief was that I learned evolution is true. (...)"
If your argument is based on dissing with a "Christianity cannot immediately explain away" concept, it's not an argument. Does a discussion require a clock? I find this more of a neutral statement. As of the evolution - it's just a theory that may or may not be true. How come other animals didn't evolve to create hivemind or other exotic form of civilisation?
"2. On that note, one of the historical problems of the Bible is that there is absolutely no evidence for any Adam or Garden of Eden. In fact, there is much evidence against it, most of it from the findings that support evolution."
While I don't prove that Garden existed, it may be treated like a story.
"3. Another historical problem with the Bible is that it is abundantly clear to any student of geography that there has never been a global flood. There cannot have been. There’s no evidence from the rocks. Besides, there isn’t enough water on the planet."
"4. Further, not even Abraham is a historical character. He is a literary invention, as even Wikipedia shows."
Well, if wikipedia says so. But even Wikipedia is _unsure_ wherever he did or did not exist.
"5. Continuing the historical problems, Moses is another character from the Bible who never existed. There was no wandering through the desert for 40 years, and no plagues of Egypt, and no Commandments from Mount Sanai. I’m not a historian and this is meant to be brief, so I’m not presenting the evidence for these last few assertions, but these Biblical figures being fictional is almost as commonly accepted among historians as evolution is among biologists.
4 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 8.9 ms ] threadWho is Wikipedia?
When we are done ridiculing each other's beliefs - so if I disprove your argument nr 6 and your second argument, do I win disproval of number 9?
Morality _is_ natural, even if it has been created by God. How does it disprove?
"10. The least moral Christian teaching, however, is the requirement of faith to avoid Hell. I hope I need not explain more than to point out that some people, such as myself, are apparently incapable of holding a conviction without evidence. Why would a god make me this way, then doom me to eternal torment for being this way?"
Bad point, bad argument. It'd be an honour to have it explained, cite or something please.
Until I get an answer, I shall only say : It requires faith because of nature of God. If religion named "Randomigion" was based on _knowledge_ not _faith_ what would it be? We all knew God existed, thus we all because of _fear_ of going to hell became "Randomigion believers" and stayed this way, crumbling and dying while thinking if we did something against our God. But we (at least I am) are Christians of Christianity. We know we require faith because of not knowing of God's Power and Might we have _free will_ and _love_ that we can display to others. We can believe or not. Also - Jesus said we all have been saved. But we still have to learn the love the way it truly and really is.
"11. This leads nicely to one of my other problems. If the Christian God were real, if He were omniscient, omnipotent, and wanted me to join Him in Heaven when I die, and if believing in Him was the first requirement for that, wouldn’t He give me everything I need to believe? And yet, I find absolutely no evidence, not evidence a convincing argument. I simply cannot believe, and if the Christian god were real, I would."
Well, this argument is based on same concept as number 10, so my answer applies here as well.
"12. Indeed, it is difficult to tell that all Christians believe in the same god. There are so many disagreements between the over 40,000 denominations that one is forced to wonder how all-powerful that god could be. After all, I could probably write a book that is interpreted fewer than 40,000 different ways; why couldn’t god do that with the Bible?"
Because of translation errors and way the languages change, we get other tenths of 9,000 different ways and wording of "Jesus walks on the water".
"13. The most classic reason to doubt Christianity is the problem of evil. I simply cannot believe that an all-loving being is watching over a world wherein child rape exists. I differentiate this from the problem of suffering, in that I could accept that some suffering is necessary even with an all-loving and all-powerful God in charge, but the unnecessary and ceaseless suffering of countless innocents in natural disasters worldwide is simply too much. Tsunamis, hurricanes, child cancer, parasites that eat a lamb’s brain as it slowly dies… how can anyone look at that and still believe in a loving deity capable of stopping such monstrosities?"
I. Animals have no souls, think of them more of automatons. II. All pain is due _Original sin_. III. http://carm.org/if-god-all-powerful-and-loving-why-there-suf...
"14. I have one last historical argument. The character of Jesus in the gospels is possibly fictional, and certainly not as miraculous as described. Historical consensus is that the man did exist, but there are compelling arguments that he was a myth who was historicized, much like Hercules. In any case, most historians see all the contradictions among the various gospels as evidence that many of the events described never happened. Indeed, very little is left. However, this is an argument I am stil...
Let me try. Because you like Wikipedia, so will I. But i'll be cropping your arguments if they are too long, I will still answer the whole, original "argument". Please realise, though, that this is not answered by a priest nor scholar, but a believing student that shares his point of view on "common sense". i'll also accent words by _underscoring_ not CAPSING because it focuses way nicer.
Dear erisblastar
"1. My first reason for losing belief was that I learned evolution is true. (...)"
If your argument is based on dissing with a "Christianity cannot immediately explain away" concept, it's not an argument. Does a discussion require a clock? I find this more of a neutral statement. As of the evolution - it's just a theory that may or may not be true. How come other animals didn't evolve to create hivemind or other exotic form of civilisation?
"2. On that note, one of the historical problems of the Bible is that there is absolutely no evidence for any Adam or Garden of Eden. In fact, there is much evidence against it, most of it from the findings that support evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden#Proposed_locatio... While we are talking about the Garden - there was no apple, but a "fruit" due to error with translations in ancient times of past.
Adam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam#Etymology same goes for Eve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Etymology let's also accept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Scientific_communi... I know also of a translation in my language, that instead of "Adam and Eve" uses the "the Man" and "That-of-the-Man".
While I don't prove that Garden existed, it may be treated like a story.
"3. Another historical problem with the Bible is that it is abundantly clear to any student of geography that there has never been a global flood. There cannot have been. There’s no evidence from the rocks. Besides, there isn’t enough water on the planet."
That's a good one :) It is true - there is not enough _fluid_ water on the planet. Lets grab the glacers then! also - there _is_ evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicit... I see here at least 5 good hypotheses.
"4. Further, not even Abraham is a historical character. He is a literary invention, as even Wikipedia shows."
Well, if wikipedia says so. But even Wikipedia is _unsure_ wherever he did or did not exist.
"5. Continuing the historical problems, Moses is another character from the Bible who never existed. There was no wandering through the desert for 40 years, and no plagues of Egypt, and no Commandments from Mount Sanai. I’m not a historian and this is meant to be brief, so I’m not presenting the evidence for these last few assertions, but these Biblical figures being fictional is almost as commonly accepted among historians as evolution is among biologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity
I have to comment on your "haste". If you want me to take this argument seriously, please: present evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#Historicity
"6. On a different hand, there are several moral problems with Chr...