Arguments From Christians

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi all

 

I want to run through some arguments from Christians that I'm hearing as see what kind of responses you'd give.

 

I tend to classify these arguments as "defensive" or "fort building" arguments, where because of either lack of evidence, or a threat to belief (a de-converting member for instance) these people start bringing out arguments that are in reality a subconscious attempt to protect the beliefs (Not that the Christians would admit that)

 

So here's the first one I've heard of late:

 

The lack of historical evidence argument

 

There is no historical and extra biblical evidence because the other nations wouldn't write about God's people destroying them. Example - there is no reference in Egypt to the 2 million slaves because Egypt wouldn't want to admit that the Hebrews God kicked their butt.

 

Likewise there is no extra biblical evidence of Jesus because no one would want to write about the son of God, and beside that almost no one knew Jesus was on earth. Example the Jewish priests wouldn't write about Jesus because Jesus was overturning their way of life, and the Romans didn't care because people were crucified all the time.

 

 

So thoughts? I'm not sure how accurate the statement "nations don't record those who conquered them" is. Do we have evidence of other ancient nations writing about getting wasted by a rival nation?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi LF. Is this from the same guy as the scientific "arguments"?

 

1. His strategy seems to be to insulate his beliefs from attack by making them unfalsifiable. Arguing that the Bible just might not be false does not amount to presenting reasons to believe it is true. There are a lot of assertions that might not be false, e.g. Egypt wouldn't have written about the stuff that was done by aliens because they wouldn't have recognized the aliens as aliens. Or whatever.

 

2. All the stuff I've read about the archaeology of Egypt and Palestine/Arabia during the second millenium BCE indicates that the Exodus never occurred. Archaeologists and historians even say it can be shown that Egypt remained in control of Sinai and Canaan during the time that the Torah has Moses and Joshua wandering in Sinai and invading Canaan. 

 

3. So your friend is conceding that there is no extra-biblical reference to Jesus? Cool! I guess he realizes how weak are appeals to Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and other later sources. 

 

4. The Exodus and Jesus' ministry and RESURRECTION are the most stupendous events in salvation history, and therefore, in world history. So your friend's omni-everything God has arranged that there be NO evidence of these stupendous events except in the books, the religious status of which are exactly what is in question. And that omni-everything God will burn people forever if they use their brains to ask for reasons why they should believe these books and not the books of other religions, which make similar claims but whose believers will wind up in Hell. Can your friend offer some good reasons why you should believe his old books and not some other religion's old books, since he's admitted that there is no evidence outside of his old books?

 

5. Maybe gently suggest how much more centered your friend's life can become if he lives in reality.

 

------------------- adding:

 

Questions about what "other nations" would have written, or what "Egypt" would have written, are ill-formed because they forget that the identity of the writer/s needs to be specified, if it can be. Ancient Greek historians from Athens write about Athenian defeats. But in Egypt, we suppose that things like the Mernepta Stele were carved to convey messages approved by pharaoh or his ministers. If Ravenstar were still on here she could probably answer about whether the Egyptian or other sovereign would record defeats. 

 

There were neighbors, jealous of Egypt, who could have recorded the embarrassment of 2 million slaves revolting and Pharaoh's army being utterly annihilated, but no one did. Hittites, e.g.

[LogicalFallacy]

Well smack me ficino - is it that obvious? I thought I'd generalise it... sure others have made the same argument? Yes you are very correct.

 

Ha you just reminded me of a particular thing he said - God does not want to be widely known but is hidden and reveals his secrets to his chosen.

 

I didn't bring that up because the Bible so clearly refutes that - multitudes flocked around Jesus, and the Book of Acts commands that the gospel be preached far and wide, not hidden in secret.

 

"2. All the stuff I've read about the archaeology of Egypt and Palestine/Arabia during the second millenium BCE indicates that the Exodus never occurred. Archaeologists and historians even say it can be shown that Egypt remained in control of Sinai and Canaan during the time that the Torah has Moses and Joshua wandering in Sinai and invading Canaan. "

 

Some recent documentaries "show" that if you shift the date back 200 years to an early exodus that there is archaeological evidence that seems to line up. I haven't looked to closely at this, but might be an interesting thing to follow up.

 

That last point is great! I did not consider other nations. Yes its plausible that a beaten nation wouldn't write about the nation that beat them, but what about the rivals. Even today we are happy to point out when a rival of our rival gets beaten.

 

"Friend" also is ignoring history himself. Jesus wonderful word didn't manage to secretly spread itself through the west in an isolated fashion. In 325AD it become a state religion fronted by Constantine. THAT is recorded history. Also he is refusing to acknowledge that his bible is the bible that the early catholic church wanted him to read/ (But of course God guided their decisions and so todays bible is the word of god ™

[sdelsolray]

Thank him for confirming and admitting there is no historical or extra biblical evidence to support the claims in the Bible.  

 

Point out that his apologies assume the bible stories are true in the first place and that they are question begging fallacies unworthy of any further consideration.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thank him for confirming and admitting there is no historical or extra biblical evidence to support the claims in the Bible.  

 

Point out that his apologies assume the bible stories are true in the first place and that they are question begging fallacies unworthy of any further consideration.

Of course - and based on his last argument that faith comes from seeing evidence means that the previous argument is null and void... meaning it comes back to believing through faith.

[Geezer]

Tell your Xian friends to read Dr. Robert M Price book "The Human Bible NT" & "The Christ Myth & It's Problems" & that will explain to them why the Bible & Xianity are absolutely human creations.

[Geezer]

I've been discussing the Bible with some Xian Fundies on another site. I've at least got a few admissions that the Bible isn't literally true or historically accurate. Their defense is that the Bible is an example of a Theological Myth. They insist that doesn't mean it's fiction, it means it contains deep theological truth & meaning that it is often written in symbolic metaphorical language.The real meaning is left to the reader to discern.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've been discussing the Bible with some Xian Fundies on another site. I've at least got a few admissions that the Bible isn't literally true or historically accurate. Their defense is that the Bible is an example of a Theological Myth. They insist that doesn't mean it's fiction, it means it contains deep theological truth & meaning that it is often written in symbolic metaphorical language.The real meaning is left to the reader to discern.

I run into this genre argument shit a lot, too. It also reduces the claims of Christianity to unfalsifiable claims.

 

Why not a neo-Platonist allegorizing interpretation of Homer? Porphyry did that.

 

Why not accept the Bhagavad-Gita? Surely if anything, it is a Theological Myth.

 

Once they get started in the "inspired myth genre" racket, what do they do when we come to the NT's contradictory accounts of Jesus' purported post-Resurrection appearances? Are they also myth? Is the resurrection a myth? If it's historical, then what is the methodology by which we can know in advance, BEFORE we start picking apart a passage, how to sift historical truth out of it?

[midniterider]

On 2/19/2017 at 0:46 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi all

 

I want to run through some arguments from Christians that I'm hearing as see what kind of responses you'd give.

 

I tend to classify these arguments as "defensive" or "fort building" arguments, where because of either lack of evidence, or a threat to belief (a de-converting member for instance) these people start bringing out arguments that are in reality a subconscious attempt to protect the beliefs (Not that the Christians would admit that)

 

So here's the first one I've heard of late:

 

The lack of historical evidence argument

 

There is no historical and extra biblical evidence because the other nations wouldn't write about God's people destroying them. Example - there is no reference in Egypt to the 2 million slaves because Egypt wouldn't want to admit that the Hebrews God kicked their butt.

*looks on the map* - yes Egypt is still there. No, it's not called Israel. Israel is somewhere else and I believe got its official start with help from the USA. So, no Egypt did not get it's butt kicked. What is odd is that there is no mention of a Hebrew people in Egyptian history books (correct me if I'm wrong here).

How about the lack of evidence of a few million people milling about in the promised land for 40 years?

 

Likewise there is no extra biblical evidence of Jesus because no one would want to write about the son of God, and beside that almost no one knew Jesus was on earth. Example the Jewish priests wouldn't write about Jesus because Jesus was overturning their way of life, and the Romans didn't care because people were crucified all the time.

Does this mean that Osiris, Isis, and Anubis could be real ?  Or does it mean that they cannot be real?

 

So thoughts? I'm not sure how accurate the statement "nations don't record those who conquered them" is. Do we have evidence of other ancient nations writing about getting wasted by a rival nation?

 

[midniterider]

The flying spaghetti monster obviously exists because there is no evidence of him. Boom. In your face non-believer.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks for the replies all.

 

Another interesting argument, and Matt Dillahunty picks up on this, is the argument that God chooses not to reveal himself to the world, but to a select few. Matt refers to this as the problem of divine hiddenness. Essentially why does God only reveal himself to a select few if he loves the whole world and what's everyone to be saved?

 

Well friend solved this one by the presumption that God actually doesn't want the 'gospel' spread to everybody around the world. There's a chosen few.

 

This is an interesting position, and somewhat contradicts the edict to "go to the uttermost part of the earth". On the other hand it's supported by the quote from Jesus saying Many are called, few are chosen.

[sdelsolray]

Ah yes, the "I have special access and you don't" canard.

[LogicalFallacy]

sdelsolray - yep. I try to explain to Christians, well your personal experience can't help be believe because I have no way if God is speaking to you, or you need mental help. People hear God telling them to kill their kids all the time - you gonna claim that's actually your God speaking to them?

 

Oh, I had another one come past me so facepalmable it has its own fallacy name.

 

"Those ex Christians who write books about why they were Christians never truly believed in God. Anyone who truly believes never unbelieves"

 

Such a common argument - pretty much a No True Scotsman fallacy no?

 

 

[sdelsolray]

That line of fallacious assertions is particularly smarmy.

[midniterider]

On 2/28/2017 at 1:09 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Thanks for the replies all.

 

Another interesting argument, and Matt Dillahunty picks up on this, is the argument that God chooses not to reveal himself to the world, but to a select few. Matt refers to this as the problem of divine hiddenness. Essentially why does God only reveal himself to a select few if he loves the whole world and what's everyone to be saved?

 

Well friend solved this one by the presumption that God actually doesn't want the 'gospel' spread to everybody around the world. There's a chosen few.

 

This is an interesting position, and somewhat contradicts the edict to "go to the uttermost part of the earth". On the other hand it's supported by the quote from Jesus saying Many are called, few are chosen.

 

Why is one's imaginary friend considered to be an actual real person? Nothing is ever really revealed. 

 

I recall being baptised and noticing nothing out of the ordinary really happened. 

[midniterider]

22 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

sdelsolray - yep. I try to explain to Christians, well your personal experience can't help be believe because I have no way if God is speaking to you, or you need mental help. People hear God telling them to kill their kids all the time - you gonna claim that's actually your God speaking to them?

 

Oh, I had another one come past me so facepalmable it has its own fallacy name.

 

"Those ex Christians who write books about why they were Christians never truly believed in God. Anyone who truly believes never unbelieves"

 

Such a common argument - pretty much a No True Scotsman fallacy no?

 

 

 

Ask Mr Christian, "How do you know for sure that you really truly believe in Jesus. How do you know that Satan isnt just putting the idea in your mind that you believe? But one day you'll find out you were wrong. "

 

Just mess with his head a bit.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Why is one's imaginary friend considered to be an actual real person? Nothing is ever really revealed. 

 

I recall being baptised and noticing nothing out of the ordinary really happened. 

 

It's that type of thinking that lead me on the sceptical path...

 

...sorry... that allowed Satan to spread lies in my mind

 

Lord heal my headache.... nothing... Panadol.. 10 mins later pain gone. Hmmmm Lord fill me with the holy spirit, let me feel your presence... nada. Well I mustn't be right with God then... or God might not exist? Shhh that's the devil speaking.

 

I was just reading Answers in Genesis on why evolution is impossible. So they went though some points, ok, cool, interesting points to raise.... then they ended with "Scientists don't know how life started, but we do, its in the Bible with eye witness accounts to creation. Just read and believe it." (Paraphrased) How do they know this? Because the bible says so. Circular reasoning, special pleading, and many other fallacies in such a short line.

 

*Headsmack!* At that point you have just lost all credibility.