Most Convincing Argument Against Christianity

[NotBlinded]

4) The ideas in the texts are Greco-Roman. You can't communicate ideas about the 'afterlife' in Aramaic, nor is there really a delineation between the internal to the person and the external. To claim that any translation of the Bible is 'accurate' neglects the alieness of Aramaic thought to the Classical (and by extension, western) mind.

That has to be my favorite. If the religion had stayed that way, I think the world would be a little bit better.

[Guest Florida]

The most convincing argument I have against the Christianity of today is that God only had "one" punishment for sin. "Physical death". If they are not save from "death"... what is their salvation?

[Grandpa Harley]

The bible doen't give very practical advice does it? I'm supposed to hate my family, love people who abuse me, give away all my material possesions, not worry about the future, pay double damages, not worry about food and clothing, let everyone walk over me, deny sexual urges, mutilate myself, not defend myself if I am physically attacked, be content with my wages, trust all governmental authority (even if I am living in Iran or North Korea) etc

That is what the classical mind did to something very different in tenor to what was initially intended... again, the original cultural context, and the manifold meanings of single words in Aramaic skews the Greek into something that makes the extant translations so crippled as to be meaningless... although, one can clearly say the translation was successful, since we're discussing it like it's something accurate a gnat's cock short of 2000 years after the fact... People will die and kill for it... in some respects that is what repelled the Roman Emperors, and attracted them, to the Eusebian 'orthodox view'...

 

It is interesting to note that the view taken by the church, and the text selected to support it, made both the Gnostic monotheist view and the Tarsean 'three god' view both heresies while unifying the two views... Effectively, it quashed all opposition, pulled members in of rival sects by papering over the cracks and consolidated the Bishops of Rome as Vicars of Christ on Earth, as opposed to simply 'first among equals'... 100 year after Nicea, The Roman Universal Church was declared the religion of The Empire...

[Grandpa Harley]

dumb question of the day... did this thread start in 2006?

 

The date on Taph's post

 

Taphophilia post Jun 16 2006, 01:35 PM

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

K, none of those reasons apply.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

*B*) Archaeological incompatibility

*C*) Just can't accept it ethically/phillosophically

*I*) The bible is unreliable

*J*) Christians are just hypocrites (to a way lesser extant)

 

These are mine

 

Though you need to revise this list it sucks for the most part.

[quickrace89]

I'm new to these forums and they seem to lack a poll function so let's just try to stick to the options on our own.

 

The Gist: I am a christian and am preparing a short talk for my church. It's just a small personal project but I would like some opinions. Of those listed below, what do people believe is the most convincing argument against christianity?

 

*A*) Radioisotope Dating

*B*) Archaeological incompatibility

*C*) Just can't accept it ethically/phillosophically

*D*) The Da Vinci Code

*E*) The Fossil Record

*F*) Theism as a whole is just ignorant

*G*) It contains the flat-earth theory and other scientific errors

*H*) The fact of evolution proves there's no god

*I*) The bible is unreliable

*J*) Christians are just hypocrites

 

To make it easy for me to count, can each person include they're choice in the form of *X* somewhere in their post? That way I can just use firefox's find functions to quickly count them.

 

Cheers everyone, look forward to seeing the cross section.

 

Assuming you're a creationist, I don't think any arguments will make an inch of difference - they're worthless when you stick your fingers in your ears and go "NA NA NA NA CAN'T HEAR YOU" very loudly.

[Orrin Sharp]

Although I am a Christian, I would say that for me the most convincing arguments against Christianity are:

 

B: Archaeological incompatibility

 

and

 

I: The bible is unreliable

 

I can find several archaeological examples that confirm certain facts of both the Old Testament and New Testament, but I can find just as many that make it problematic for me.

 

Also, the Bible can be deemed as unreliable simply because its multiple authors could have easily had a self-interest motive behind their presentation. To me this compromises a lot of the Bible's reliability. Christianity basis itself off, in all reality, St. Paul's letters. Sure Jesus is quoted and written about, but even if we accept that as reliable information, all of today's doctrine and theology is more easily traced back to Paul's stream of thought than to direct quotes from Jesus. St. Paul has a glaring accusation on his forehead of being power hungry and manipulative at times even in his letters. How can we rely on the Bible as a holy revelation from God when its legitimacy is compromised in the interest of a few men's advancement in the social ladder?

 

The others I see as mostly silly arguments against Christianity, except I do take seriously in answering:

 

*C*) Just can't accept it ethically/phillosophically

 

and

 

 

*J*) Christians are just hypocrites

 

While I dont consider C an extremely problematic argument for me, I do take it seriously because I think it is important in showing the fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity I believe gets blamed for justifying oppression of women and even slavery. While I understand that a ton of oppression has resulted from Christianity's existence, I do not think you can say that is justified through scripture (the oppression). Its all about the context, translation and cultural differences. I think that Christianity is ethically sound, that's the point, unfortunately Christians are often the worst at fulfilling that.

 

As for J, I think it in all reality functions as a lame and ad-hominem por que attack on Christianity's legitimacy. But nonetheless It is important to answer. Christians are in fact hypocrites. I have always believed that the biggest reason that there are non-believers in Western Society is because most Christians preach one thing and then walk out the door and do the opposite. But I do not see how that can logically disprove Christianity. Atheist's preach logic and reason against faith like its a principle, even a moral principle at times. And then they turn around and walk out the door shouting arguments against Christianity or other religions like, "I can't see God, so as far as I am concerned there isn't one". I mean I understand the concept of realism and materialism etc, I do, I get it, but how can you say that statement is reasonable in any sense standing alone? My point is that we are all hypocrits, but that fact does not serve as an argumentation against our principle or cause.

[ShallowByThyGame]

Bible inconsistency is huge.

 

The existence of other religions is huge.

 

Evolution is huge.

 

But the biggest flaw is faith itself, which is a system that is designed to repress truth and intellectual integrity regardless of dogma or creed.

[oddbird1963]

My reason: If Christianity works for you, it is probably explained best by sociology, psychology and economics, with a little biology thrown in.

 

If it doesn't work for you, it is probably explained best by sociology, psychology and economics, with a little biology thrown in.

 

 

The other reasons people give for accepting and staying in the religion: subjective and arbitrary.

[Shyone]

Although I am a Christian, I would say that for me the most convincing arguments against Christianity are:

 

The others I see as mostly silly arguments against Christianity, except I do take seriously in answering:

 

*C*) Just can't accept it ethically/phillosophically

 

and

 

 

*J*) Christians are just hypocrites

 

While I dont consider C an extremely problematic argument for me, I do take it seriously because I think it is important in showing the fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity I believe gets blamed for justifying oppression of women and even slavery. While I understand that a ton of oppression has resulted from Christianity's existence, I do not think you can say that is justified through scripture (the oppression). Its all about the context, translation and cultural differences. I think that Christianity is ethically sound, that's the point, unfortunately Christians are often the worst at fulfilling that.

 

As for J, I think it in all reality functions as a lame and ad-hominem por que attack on Christianity's legitimacy. But nonetheless It is important to answer. Christians are in fact hypocrites. I have always believed that the biggest reason that there are non-believers in Western Society is because most Christians preach one thing and then walk out the door and do the opposite. But I do not see how that can logically disprove Christianity. Atheist's preach logic and reason against faith like its a principle, even a moral principle at times. And then they turn around and walk out the door shouting arguments against Christianity or other religions like, "I can't see God, so as far as I am concerned there isn't one". I mean I understand the concept of realism and materialism etc, I do, I get it, but how can you say that statement is reasonable in any sense standing alone? My point is that we are all hypocrits, but that fact does not serve as an argumentation against our principle or cause.

Here's the thing...

 

Christians claim to be better people because of their religion for many reasons. It's a better moral foundation, stricter rules, guided by the Holy Spirit, and others. But are they? Does the reality match the hype?

 

If Christians are better generally, then it would at least argue for believing the mythology for the betterment of society even if there is no truth behind it, but from top to bottom (particularly the bottom in the case of Roman Catholocism), Christians behave at least as badly as the rest of humanity irrespective of religious beliefs.

 

The "C-Street" hypocrites are good examples, the smattering of televangelists caught with their pants down, the prevalence of Christianity in prisons - Do I need to go on?

 

So the point is that this is not "just" an ad hominem, but rather a criticism of the promises of Christianity which fail. "We're better" does not match the reality, and to continue to claim so in the face of the evidence is hypocrisy.

 

As for belief in gods, and the Christian multiheaded one in particular, there are many reasons that people believe. It seems that the strongest predicting factor is geographical however. Billions of Indians have lived and died believing in reincarnation - because they were born in India. Billions of Muslims have lived and died rejecting Jesus as the Messiah - because they were born in Islamic countries. And the Chinese?

 

Having a god that is deliberately "hiding" is not really that different from not having one, is it? They really don't do anything. People work to help people: collect money, prepare and deliver supplies, rebuild, rescue - all by people. No gods there. An omnipotent god that can't do anything but "motivate people?" Pffft.

 

That's kind of where god biblical god lost me. "The Lord Said" and people take their swords and their chariots and kill people... Some miracle. This kind of conquest and "God is on Our side" works when the enemies are weak and small, but how about empires bigger than Israel? Hmmm.. Can't beat those Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians.

 

"The victory does not always go to the most powerful and best equipped, but that's the way to bet."

 

Remember when Joshua was given the order to Turn the Other Cheek?

 

Or when Moses looked at the women and children of Midian and said, "We love you, though you are our enemies"?

 

Oh, that's right, it never happened! Not until the Jews were a subjugated people.

 

You know, I'm not even concerned about archeology. Stories are stories - written by men to convey pride, unity and a religious subtext. The plagiarism is a bit more problematic for me. If the Sumerian and Babylonian gods were "false gods" (e.g. Marduk), then how did their stories get incorporated into the bible? More to the point, how about the Laws? And even more to the point, their "wisdom"?

 

If early Christians felt the need to fabricate details of the resurrection (and other aspects of the story of Jesus), then the validity of the text is reduced to "story-telling." They can't even present a consistent theology.

 

Oh, so much more, but then, I don't need to prove it's all hooey.

[Ouroboros]

As for J, I think it in all reality functions as a lame and ad-hominem por que attack on Christianity's legitimacy.

Orrin, I think you have a very honest view on your own religion. That's a very good thing.

 

I just wonder what you were saying in the sentence above.

 

But nonetheless It is important to answer. Christians are in fact hypocrites. I have always believed that the biggest reason that there are non-believers in Western Society is because most Christians preach one thing and then walk out the door and do the opposite. But I do not see how that can logically disprove Christianity.

Yes and no.

 

It doesn't disprove God or even the Gospel, but it is a thorn in the side of Christianity since Christians (and the Bible) claims that Christians become better people. By the fruit will you know the tree, you know.

 

So if the fruit is hypocrisy, then the tree is hypocrisy.

 

Isn't that what the Bible tells you? Jesus said it, didn't he. Know the tree by the fruit.

 

So according to the Bible, we should know Jesus and Christianity through the fruit, the Christians.

 

Do you agree with the Bible on that point?

 

(* see below what I think about it

 

Atheist's preach logic and reason against faith like its a principle, even a moral principle at times. And then they turn around and walk out the door shouting arguments against Christianity or other religions like, "I can't see God, so as far as I am concerned there isn't one".

Right.

 

I can't see Santa Claus either, so as far as I'm concerned, Santa Claus is a fantasy character. Don't you agree?

 

Which option is most logical:

 

1) I can't see X, or test it, prove it, or in any other way justify the existence of X, therefore it is reasonable to assume that X doesn't exist.

 

2) I can't see X, or test it, prove it, or in any other way justify the existence of X, therefore it is reasonable to assume that X exists because I feel like it or just want to.

 

I mean I understand the concept of realism and materialism etc, I do, I get it, but how can you say that statement is reasonable in any sense standing alone? My point is that we are all hypocrits, but that fact does not serve as an argumentation against our principle or cause.

I know what you're saying, but think about it. The Bible, the word of God, declares that you will know Christianity by a couple of observable conditions:

1) the good fruit, Gal 5:22 (IIRC)

2) according to Jesus, there will be unity, the Christians will be united (I don't remember which verse, I have to look it up if you want it)

 

Atheists don't define some kind of overarching proof of their correctness based on their united behavior. Atheists do not promise non-hypocrisy or righteousness. Atheists do not promise you will find the ultimate and the final answer and truth to all questions, not at all. Atheism is the step away from belief, into doubt, and then you take it from there, wherever you want. But atheism does not promise the final truth to anything, only the doubt that the Jesus-God-with-sandals-talking-in-your-head-and-healed-your-flu exists.

 

 

(* regarding the fruit-tree thing, I think it's invalid logic. In logic it's called "hasty generalization" or "guilt by association." It's basically accusing the group for one person's behavior, or suspecting one person for being just like the rest of the group. So the know-the-tree-by-the-fruit idea is basically wrong.

 

But, since Christians do believe this, and they do believe God is somehow magically making Christians better people, and they believe this fruit-tree thing, they are judging themselves when they behave like dickheads.

 

Do you see how it connects? It's no that the tree is bad because of the fruit, but the problem is that Christians claim that they are better when in reality they're not. In other words, Christianity doesn't do what it promises. Christians say they are better as moral people, yet they are not. It doesn't work as they say. They live some kind of hero fantasy. They dream about themselves, how valiant and good they are, but then they're not.

[Legion]

I think skepticism itself is the best argument against Christianity. Which is more likely?

 

1. We don't really have a very good grasp of the nature of the universe and ourselves.

 

or

 

2. Christianity paints an accurate picture of reality.

 

I find the first option to be most likely. It's not the most comforting thought one can have, but comfort should not be the criteria for assessing truth in my opinion.

[Vigile]

I have always believed that the biggest reason that there are non-believers in Western Society is because most Christians preach one thing and then walk out the door and do the opposite.

 

Just the opposite for me. Logical inconsistencies were always a puzzle to me, but I primarily held onto my belief because my family were very much sincere.

 

But you might be right about America. Europe, OTH, largely disregards it today due to the logical inconsistencies that ultimately got me.

[Vigile]

We don't really have a very good grasp of the nature of the universe and ourselves

 

I'm curious as to what you mean by "not very good." We certainly don't know everything, but a pretty good trend has emerged that has consistently offered natural explanations (100% of the time in fact) as far as I can tell.

[Legion]

We don't really have a very good grasp of the nature of the universe and ourselves

 

I'm curious as to what you mean by "not very good." We certainly don't know everything, but a pretty good trend has emerged that has consistently offered natural explanations (100% of the time in fact) as far as I can tell.

Well, as you probably know Vigile, I embrace natural explanations myself. But I think science is very young, and I suspect that the picture we've inhereted from Newton is likely deficient in some important ways. Contemporay physicists like to pretend that they hold domain over all of material reality, but when we ask them for explanations of organisms they are curiously silent.

 

I think with a bit of persistance and luck we will uncover the causal basis of any set of phenomena we care to examine. But I think we have a long, long, way to go.

[Vigile]

Thanks. I find this interesting so hopefully I'm not derailing the thread too much.

 

but when we ask them for explanations of organisms they are curiously silent.

 

What do you mean by explanations? You later mentioned cause. Are you referring to life itself?

[Legion]

Thanks. I find this interesting so hopefully I'm not derailing the thread too much.

 

but when we ask them for explanations of organisms they are curiously silent.

 

What do you mean by explanations? You later mentioned cause. Are you referring to life itself?

Yes. Very adept of you Vigile. Life itself. What is life? I've heard this is really a "why" question in disguise. Why is a specific natural system an organism and not something else? The physicist would have you believe that his current tool box can uncover an explanation. But I think it likely that their tool box needs to be enriched.

 

I think life is natural, as natural as a rock. But few could tell us, in any sort of definitive or authoratative manner, what distinguishes an organism from a rock.

[Shyone]

Thanks. I find this interesting so hopefully I'm not derailing the thread too much.

 

but when we ask them for explanations of organisms they are curiously silent.

 

What do you mean by explanations? You later mentioned cause. Are you referring to life itself?

I think I have figured out how life began. The secret relates to the unique structure of methionine and it's three letter code, AUG.

 

I'll post the secret to life when I'm done with my research, probably sometime in AUGust.

[Legion]

I think I have figured out how life began. The secret relates to the unique structure of methionine and it's three letter code, AUG.

 

I'll post the secret to life when I'm done with my research, probably sometime in AUGust.

Not bad Shyone, not bad.

[Jedah]

Christians themselves. Christianity makes exorbitant claims about the gift of the Holy spirit granting special powers like being able to instantly tell is someone else is a christian just by feeling the Holy spirit and such. A long list of this nonsense can be found here and it should be noted that even this list is incomplete.

 

Christians obviously have none of these powers. Faith healing has been proven to be delusion. Prayer is just as effective as a lucky rabbits foot ( IE: not at all ). Christians are not morally superior in any way, as proven by statistical evidence. Every one of these supernatural claims has been thoroughly discredited time and time again.

 

Yet, the kicker here is that Christians still believe these things despite all evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you? It tells us that Christians are delusional. Christianity is followed by the deluded. Not the Honest, not the morally superior, not the peacemakers, not the meek, but the delusional.

 

That, at the very least, is proof that Christianity as it exists today is bogus. This cannot account for the possibility that there may have one day in the past been true believers who really did show true signs of what the Gift of the Holy spirit is supposed to do, but even in that extremely unlikely event one thing is for certain: that day is long gone.

[skepticalme]

To me, the most convincing argument against god is that he is not needed. People invented gods to explain the unexplainable. Why does the sun rise and set? It must be a gods; What causes the weather? It must be the gods. God has always been a stopgap explaination for what we didn't know at the time. As we gained knowledge we found that gods weren't neccessary for the sun to rise and set or to cause the weather. So many things that used to be attributed to god now have natural explainations. People excepted gods because they were naive to the real explainations. That trend continues today. Just look at the arguments that people make for god; the Kalam, what is consciousness, morality, etc. These are arguments from ingnorance. People are naive to those answers just as people used to be naive to the cause of weather and sunrises. Now, just as then, a god isn't neccessary to explain them. I can look to the past and see that things had natural explainations even though people didn't understand them at the time. Its the same story with the current crop of arguments. We don't know, therefore god. Even now, god has been pushed so far back that, even in the minds of many christians, god was only needed for the "first cause", the first lifeform on earth and to somehow imbue the first humans with conciousness and morality. Thats it. A pretty far cry from what used to be attributed to him. Eventually, even those mysteries will fall to natural explainations. What will christians do when thier deity has been reduced to a passive spectator? He's nearly to that point now.

[Kathlene]

Christians themselves. Christianity makes exorbitant claims about the gift of the Holy spirit granting special powers like being able to instantly tell is someone else is a christian just by feeling the Holy spirit and such. A long list of this nonsense can be found here and it should be noted that even this list is incomplete.

 

Christians obviously have none of these powers. Faith healing has been proven to be delusion. Prayer is just as effective as a lucky rabbits foot ( IE: not at all ). Christians are not morally superior in any way, as proven by statistical evidence. Every one of these supernatural claims has been thoroughly discredited time and time again.

 

Yet, the kicker here is that Christians still believe these things despite all evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you? It tells us that Christians are delusional. Christianity is followed by the deluded. Not the Honest, not the morally superior, not the peacemakers, not the meek, but the delusional.

 

That, at the very least, is proof that Christianity as it exists today is bogus. This cannot account for the possibility that there may have one day in the past been true believers who really did show true signs of what the Gift of the Holy spirit is supposed to do, but even in that extremely unlikely event one thing is for certain: that day is long gone.

 

Well I personally think there are a lot of vast generalisations in the above statements, some pretty weak answers too. Do you go and check every single christians experience and then declare it is false and therefore a delusion? Has every single faith healing proven to be a delusion? Has every single prayer been looked at and examined? Do christians say they are morally superior? or more likely weak human beings like every one else? Huh so every supernatural claim has be thoroughly discredited...mmm. Like I said, generalisation.

[Michael]

Do you go and check every single christians experience and then declare it is false and therefore a delusion? Has every single faith healing proven to be a delusion? Has every single prayer been looked at and examined? Do christians say they are morally superior? or more likely weak human beings like every one else? Huh so every supernatural claim has be thoroughly discredited...mmm. Like I said, generalisation.

 

Maybe, because it is impossible to do. We can not look at every single experience and you know that. I can not examine every single case of UFO sighting just to proof that they are wrong. I can not examine every single claim for the existence of ghosts. Who has the burden of proof?

 

Generalizations can be helpful to deal with complex problems. In the end xianity is a personal experience, also atheism, deism and so on.

[Guest Valk0010]

Christians themselves. Christianity makes exorbitant claims about the gift of the Holy spirit granting special powers like being able to instantly tell is someone else is a christian just by feeling the Holy spirit and such. A long list of this nonsense can be found here and it should be noted that even this list is incomplete.

 

Christians obviously have none of these powers. Faith healing has been proven to be delusion. Prayer is just as effective as a lucky rabbits foot ( IE: not at all ). Christians are not morally superior in any way, as proven by statistical evidence. Every one of these supernatural claims has been thoroughly discredited time and time again.

 

Yet, the kicker here is that Christians still believe these things despite all evidence to the contrary. What does that tell you? It tells us that Christians are delusional. Christianity is followed by the deluded. Not the Honest, not the morally superior, not the peacemakers, not the meek, but the delusional.

 

That, at the very least, is proof that Christianity as it exists today is bogus. This cannot account for the possibility that there may have one day in the past been true believers who really did show true signs of what the Gift of the Holy spirit is supposed to do, but even in that extremely unlikely event one thing is for certain: that day is long gone.

 

Well I personally think there are a lot of vast generalisations in the above statements, some pretty weak answers too. Do you go and check every single christians experience and then declare it is false and therefore a delusion? Has every single faith healing proven to be a delusion? Has every single prayer been looked at and examined? Do christians say they are morally superior? or more likely weak human beings like every one else? Huh so every supernatural claim has be thoroughly discredited...mmm. Like I said, generalisation.

I would take a bet there all false, because everybody has there own particular religious experiences, unless you were born and remained some sort of atheist.

 

If one christian has a false experiences, does not follow that there is a possibility that all others have false experiences.

 

I would say that, generally unless given reason otherwise, Jedah is right

Probability speaking he is right, and also logically I think he is right as well.

 

You would think every christian would have true experiences and have to power to do faith healing