The Burden Of Proof Is On Christians To Prove The Bible, Not Skeptics To Disprove It!

[Pegasus_Voyager]

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In my experiences debating "Christians" ( however you define that) as a skeptic, I've noticed common patterns in Christians responses: Defensiveness is the most common: "How DARE you question God, Jesus, the Bible, my saintly mother, etc, etc, YOU BLASPHEMING, PROUD, ARROGANT, GOD-HATING, MAN-CENTERED, ATHEISTIC, DEMONIZED etc, etc, fill-in-the blank", or what amount to down-right personal attacks, which are called "red herring" arguments, the most common being "You're stupid, crazy, illogical, dumb, etc, for not believing in God, the Bible, Jesus, or any combination thereof". Mockery is also a common tactic. Doesn't your Bible say not to sit in the seat of a mocker? Not scripture, but one philosopher said that "mockery is the argument of a fool". If the shoe fits, wear it. Or you spew scripture, as if everything you quote is 100% truth. In other words, you try to prove the Bible with the Bible, which is as ludicrous as trying to prove Mother Goose by quoting Mother Goose. By and large, apologists show a pattern of being patronizing, unloving, boorish, condescending, pompous, dogmatic, high-minded, judgmental, snide, pharasaical, smarmy, self-righteous, mean-spirited, trite, disingenous, unethical, and evasive.(one of "your own" even conceded this) In other words, you're trying to sell Christianity by displaying qualities and characteristics that your own savior would find reprehensible and wouldn't let you within a mile of the "pearly gates" if you harbored them. Then there's the "You're listening to Devil" horsedung. Then, when valid arguments are presented that lend serious doubt to the veracity of the Bible and conclusively prove that the Bible is not inerrant (at least the KJV) such as the obvious contradictions in 2 Kings 8:26 vs 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24: 8-9, in which two kings took power at differing ages in their lives, or the obvious scientific and logical arguments against Noah's flood, you throw up the "You don't know the definition of biblical inerrancy" smokescreen and dig your heels in, vehemently insisting that copyist errors are not true contradictions, or in the Noah's flood scenario, the "Godditit, Sorcery and Magic" argument. Even more ludicrous is how you defend God, as if God needs you to fight his battles. What, is your god an invalid? is he impotent? asleep? He can't come out of Heaven and fight his own battles?

 

Now, do the fact that a plethora of apologists act like horse's rectums disprove the existence of God? In and of itself, no. But to quote Mahandas Gahndi, "I would be a Christian..if I had never known a Christian". My variant of that is that there is no greater evidence that Christianity is a lie than the conduct of Christians themselves. I constantly get told that you can't judge Christianity by the attitude of Christians. That's as preposterous as saying that I can't judge Burger King by it's hamburgers, especially when people become bigger jerks after getting dunked than when they were heathens.(Maybe you weren't held under long enough, I don't know) Why should I buy into this Bible that you're trying to sell me when your very conduct proves conclusively that you don't live by it?

 

But you call me arrogant and proud, and then throw a Bible in front of me and say, "It's true, believe in it, take our word for it, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it". Who's being arrogant here? Why should I believe the Bible over Nietszchi, Confuscious, the Koran, atheism, etc? The burden of proof is most certainly on you to prove it true, which is in line with the scientific method. Otherwise, what's to keep anyone with some hair-brained scientific theory or religious viewpoint from coming down the pike, putting it to pen, presenting it to the world, and saying, "This is truth! Accept it without question!"?

 

When you say the Bible is truth, you have drawn a conclusion in your mind, and then seek to crush any argument, even a valid one, that challenges that conclusion. In other words, you are thinking like a cultist, and admittedly and in all fairness to creationists, like many evolutionists

 

From the atheist's viewpoint, you are asking him to believe:

 

1) That the first man was made from mud.

 

2) The first woman was made out of a bone.

 

3) That a snake could talk this woman into eating a fruit.

 

4) That a boat the size of a modern barge held two of every species of land animal and insect on Earth, and was logistically supported by eight people, and you fail miserably to explain to anyone who's half-way intelligent how this could be accomplished.

 

5) That a donkey can talk seers out of cursing countries.

 

6) That a ghost can impregnate a virgin.

 

7) In a God, who calls himself merciful, loving, compassionate, and kind, who throws genocidal "hissy fits" and indiscriminately drowns millions of children, pregnant women, and babies, kills the first born of Egypt, which included children, who did nothing worthy of death, orders the wholesale slaughter of Israel's neighbors, including children and babies, and kills David's innocent baby to punish David, all the while Christians sing "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world", and you get your "jaws torqued" and your "whitey-diteys in a wad" when atheists point out the obvious inconsistency.

 

And you snicker at them, condescendingly chuckling under your breath when they refuse to buy into it?

 

From my vantage point, I have kicked the Judeo-Christian God out of my life, lock, stock, and barrel, and I am perfectly content with that. I was a Christian for 40 years, now I'm not, and I'm happier now.

 

Does that mean he doesn't exist? No, it doesn't. My belief is that there may be some higher intelligence at work in the Universe, but the existence of the Universe, man, and life doesn't conclusively prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. If he does exist, he's ambivalent, indifferent, suffering with multiple personality disorder, genocidal, vain, insecure, hypocritical, inconsistent, and an "absentee landlord". My expectations for a god are a bit higher, thanks. And if you wish to to change my mind, you're going to have to try different tactics than the ones I mentioned in the paragraph below the definition of "scientific method". Otherwise, you're wasting your time and just playing the same old tired and tedious game!

[Lycorth]

Heh - good post

 

Indeed, it's up to them to convince us that their god is real if they expect us to follow it. They are the ones who claim to have this needed message for the good of our souls, so the burden falls to them to prove that there's a need to buy into it.

[Poonis]

When debating christians, it is always beneficial to debate downwards, when they debate upwards. For example:

 

When christians use the bible to debate upwards that jesus died for your sins, you debate downwards by saying the bible is not inspired by god. When they debate upwards by saying the bible is inspired by god because the bible says so, you debate downwards by having them prove their god exists. Thus, the debate decends foundationally in your favor, from the christian topologically arguing that jesus is your lord and savior, to having them come to terms with their own beliefs by having them conjour up some sort of proof that their god exists in the first place.

[Lycorth]

Zackly. All you have to do is keep insisting on proof, on hard evidence and facts. All Xian arguments hinge on the assumption that their god is real, so focus on that chink in the armor and you'll win every time.

 

There are lots more chinks in the armor than that, but that's the most fundamental one. A phony god cannot demand worship or damn anyone's soul.