Jump to content

Most Convincing Argument Against Christianity


Guest fatalGlory
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

The most convincing argument against Christianity for me is that it revolves around the belief in a god. Gods were invented by men, the Christian one is no different. If you want more reasons... Virgin births, resurrections, miracles, talking animals and bushes, people living in whales, demons, devils, angels, dragons, unicorns... And did I mention god? There's a god in there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it depends on the sort of Christian you are dealing with. An argument useful against on group might not be so great against another. Showing errors in the bible probably isn't going to impress a Christian who doesn't believe in the Bible as the literal and unerring word of god. Some Christians are just obtuse and no matter what you show them will bury their heads in the sand because they would be lost without their imaginary friend and their self induced feel good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hopefully I'm not derailing the thread too much.

 

 

 

The original post that started this thread was made four years ago - I don't think derailment is a concern at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :shrug:

 

The point is that every Christian that has come forth and tried to prove anything of this magic thinking statistically or scientifically has failed. While it may be generalizing, when everyone that tries get's a fail that tells you something.

 

You also have to consider that it is impossible to examine each individual life, so you somewhat have to generalize to come up with anything tangible. You also have to consider that if you refuse to accept such logic as valid, you must also accept that the reverse is true: You can't generalize the individual lives of nonbelievers either, so the Christian claim that they are somehow less ethical is still invalidated. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

One of the arguments I find personally appealing is the argument of chance. For instance I've asked xian's what religion they would most likely be following if they were born and raised in Saudi Arabia. There is usually a pause, a look on their face like they just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and THEN I'll get some kind of response in the vein of it's not a fair question because you can't set up a test case or something to that effect. The overwhelming incidence of Muslims in Saudi Arabia just gets wiped away.

 

Another one I have fun with deals with biblical chronology. Jesus made reference to Noahs flood but if you use YEC's chronology there are structures that would not be standing or would show evidence of water erosion/marking had the flood actually occurred. Therefore the alleged Jesus was only going by legend and not omniscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. :shrug:

 

... yes, but I thought it was christianity that was the authority on generalisations!! "All mankind are born evil; god is the answer to all your problems; ask and it shall be given unto you; seek and ye shall find; Non and ex-christians are people who just enjoy sinning and are taking the easy way out; if it aint working for you it is YOU who is doing something wrong;........."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*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

I wish I could give you an answer in the form you would like, but you may just have to do these as individual responses. You don't have the one I would choose, but G comes closer. Let me restate it in the words that are more accurate to how I feel:

 

"The most vocal Christians miss the entire point of mythology, and make their faith based on a desperate denial of credible knowledge through science in an blatantly irrational attempt to validate their particular "faith", instead of simply embracing a non-rational (as opposed to irrational) experience of human spirituality, using the mythology as their guide."

 

In a single word:

 

*K* LITERALISM

 

The choices you gave above seem to be only from the perspective of a literalist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I quite agree with AM, once again. But I'd pick a little of I as well, since if you view the "bible" as one text, you're 1. missing a lot of history, and 2. deluded.

And *C*. Biblegod is a tyrant, and if real, I'd rather burn than bow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

Biblegod is a tyrant, and if real, I'd rather burn than bow.

Same here. I'd even join Satan's army against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

 

(L)-The Problem of Evil

 

I guess you can say ©, but that is not specific enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think the most convincing case against Christianity isn't even an argument. Just read the damn Bible. Cover-to-cover. It defies you to take it seriously. If you can make it as far as Jonah the Whale, you've got some tollerance built up.

 

Me? I can barely make it past the first line in Genesis without raising some scientific objections. I've never seen a book get so much wrong so quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best argument is that the gospels (which is the very basis of the religion) do not agree with each other or with what is recorded by contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly ministered there, and makes no mention at all of him or his followers. Nor does Justus of Tiberia, who lived in Nazareth at the time of Jesus' ministry and makes no mention of him. Other than pseudoepigraphic inserts into Josephus and Tacitus, none of the other historians (such as Pliny and Suetonius] of that period mention Jesus...then you add the fact that even the earliest church fathers had no idea when Jesus lived and died (Ireaneus says he lived 'til the reign of Trajan, which would have made him 90+, and Epiphanus says that he was born during the reign of king Alexander Jannaeus, who reigned from 103 to 76 BCE which means he would have had to be 108 years old to be executed by Pilate. The entire religion is based on the gospels, if they are erroneous in one thing, the whole religion collaspes...and they are and thus the religion is just a contrivance of man! Mako

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, there is no convincing evidence FOR Christianity. So, Christians, what is your best argument for believing in Christianity?

 

a)god did it

b)god said it

c)I felt a tingle

d)I can't explain stuff, so the Hebrew god Yahweh exists

e)christianity changed my life, or that of others, and no one in any other religion has ever seen any life improvement with their systems of belief

f)no one can prove this assumption wrong

g)believing something unfounded with no evidence is a virtue (faith)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, there is no convincing evidence FOR Christianity. So, Christians, what is your best argument for believing in Christianity?

 

a)god did it

b)god said it

c)I felt a tingle

d)I can't explain stuff, so the Hebrew god Yahweh exists

e)christianity changed my life, or that of others, and no one in any other religion has ever seen any life improvement with their systems of belief

f)no one can prove this assumption wrong

g)believing something unfounded with no evidence is a virtue (faith)

 

Heh, except C, D, E and F can be applied to other religious besides christianity, so, they don't hold up to Hindus, Muslims, Vodouns, Pagans, Jews, etc, since the same can be said by them. Same with miracles. Possibly the others, but G is so much a part of christianity, it seems almost exclusive.

Hell, I just experienced a very powerful ritual in a group setting, completely non-christian. Read about it here if you wish. I know it's not empirical proof of anything, but it had an effect on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

While at the same time they eat pork, shrimp, work on Sunday, and break many other laws in the OT, because they feel it doesn't fit into their culture.

 

They run to Jesus for forgiveness after they masturbate, but they eat pork and shrimp by the pound without regret. That's bigotry of highest degree. They obey traditions, but they disobey their own "Book of God". We know what Jesus called that kind of people...

 

 

reply

eating stuff is not a sin by mark 7 [and so the other books with same idea] so THAT would not make them hypocrytes.

Eat up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best argument is that the gospels (which is the very basis of the religion) do not agree with each other or with what is recorded by contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly ministered there, and makes no mention at all of him or his followers. Nor does Justus of Tiberia, who lived in Nazareth at the time of Jesus' ministry and makes no mention of him. Other than pseudoepigraphic inserts into Josephus and Tacitus, none of the other historians (such as Pliny and Suetonius] of that period mention Jesus...then you add the fact that even the earliest church fathers had no idea when Jesus lived and died (Ireaneus says he lived 'til the reign of Trajan, which would have made him 90+, and Epiphanus says that he was born during the reign of king Alexander Jannaeus, who reigned from 103 to 76 BCE which means he would have had to be 108 years old to be executed by Pilate. The entire religion is based on the gospels, if they are erroneous in one thing, the whole religion collaspes...and they are and thus the religion is just a contrivance of man! Mako

 

you wrote 'Other than pseudoepigraphic inserts into Josephus and Tacitus'

is there proof they were inserts?

like a text that skips that section?

as a doubter here wrote 'But where’s the proof? It’s nonexistent

Imaginary will just not due[sic do]' I doubt the insert claim too?

Pliny the Elder was a writer on science and morality issues' not history ike josephus and any author not writing history would leavit out especially because he was executed as a criminal

you wrote 'contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly ministered there, and makes no mention at all of him or his followers. Nor does Justus of Tiberia, who lived in Nazareth'

Philo never mentions Christianity either did they also not exist? and as for Justus, 'we do not even possess his work'

perhaps i should stay christian after all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 - There is a Poll function. You simply missed it. Oh well.

 

#2 - Your choices are laughable. Especially the DaVinci Code choice. What the hell does a work of fiction have to do with anything? You Christians need to get over your preoccupation with movies, TV and novels. If a book or a movie were all it takes to topple a religion, then your cause would have been lost centuries ago. Get over it. It's just a stinking book/movie. Even atheists find it bad fiction.

 

#3 - Speaking of "stinking books", THE most convincing argument against Christianity IS your so-called Holy Bible®. All one need do is READ the damn thing, and you should cease believing. The fact that there are so many conflicting Bibles should be enough evidence to demonstrate how false the whole religion is. What? "God" couldn't make up his mind? Didn't have enough control over things that he couldn't ensure only ONE book was written? Don't make me laugh.

 

So my answer, I suppose, is I) The Bible is bogus beyond belief. An obvious human construct of fictions. (I changed it a bit, but you get the point.)

 

(Christians being hypocrites and nut jobs is a close second.)

 

you wrote 'THE most convincing argument against Christianity IS your so-called Holy Bible®. All one need do is READ the damn thing, and you should cease believing.'

why? because 'The fact that there are so many conflicting Bibles should be enough evidence to demonstrate how false the whole religion is.'

judges in court deal with different versions of testimony all the time and the common parts of each verify each other dont they?

you wrote 'What? "God" couldn't make up his mind? Didn't have enough control over things that he couldn't ensure only ONE book was written?'

what if gdo does not work that way? what if he did not dictate word for word.

these arguments are all way too weak.

 

'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

judges in court deal with different versions of testimony all the time and the common parts of each verify each other dont they?

you wrote 'What? "God" couldn't make up his mind? Didn't have enough control over things that he couldn't ensure only ONE book was written?'

what if gdo does not work that way? what if he did not dictate word for word.

these arguments are all way too weak.

 

So, prochristian, you find these arguments to be too weak. Do you think that the "testimony" of the Bible would hold up in a modern court of law? Why?

 

How exactly do you think God works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you wrote 'Other than pseudoepigraphic inserts into Josephus and Tacitus'

is there proof they were inserts?

like a text that skips that section?

 

In fact, there ARE different versions of the Testimonium Flavianum, most scholars agree that the passage was either added or redacted and edited by christian scholars.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

you wrote 'contemporary historians such as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly ministered there, and makes no mention at all of him or his followers. Nor does Justus of Tiberia, who lived in Nazareth'

Philo never mentions Christianity either did they also not exist? and as for Justus, 'we do not even possess his work'

perhaps i should stay christian after all?

 

Uh, the fact that he does not mention Christianity is sort of the point. It is for this and several other reasons that many historians believe that Christianity was a much smaller movement in the first century than the bible would have us believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, Josephus as a JEWISH historian. The Testimonium Flavianum has him saying that Jesus was the Messiah. Do you REALLY need to ask if there's evidence of it being an insertion?

 

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

#1 - There is a Poll function. You simply missed it. Oh well.

 

#2 - Your choices are laughable. Especially the DaVinci Code choice. What the hell does a work of fiction have to do with anything? You Christians need to get over your preoccupation with movies, TV and novels. If a book or a movie were all it takes to topple a religion, then your cause would have been lost centuries ago. Get over it. It's just a stinking book/movie. Even atheists find it bad fiction.

 

#3 - Speaking of "stinking books", THE most convincing argument against Christianity IS your so-called Holy Bible®. All one need do is READ the damn thing, and you should cease believing. The fact that there are so many conflicting Bibles should be enough evidence to demonstrate how false the whole religion is. What? "God" couldn't make up his mind? Didn't have enough control over things that he couldn't ensure only ONE book was written? Don't make me laugh.

 

So my answer, I suppose, is I) The Bible is bogus beyond belief. An obvious human construct of fictions. (I changed it a bit, but you get the point.)

 

(Christians being hypocrites and nut jobs is a close second.)

 

you wrote 'THE most convincing argument against Christianity IS your so-called Holy Bible®. All one need do is READ the damn thing, and you should cease believing.'

why? because 'The fact that there are so many conflicting Bibles should be enough evidence to demonstrate how false the whole religion is.'

judges in court deal with different versions of testimony all the time and the common parts of each verify each other dont they?

you wrote 'What? "God" couldn't make up his mind? Didn't have enough control over things that he couldn't ensure only ONE book was written?'

what if gdo does not work that way? what if he did not dictate word for word.

these arguments are all way too weak.

 

'

If the bible is innerrant it wouldn't contradict. And if its not innerrant, why bother then. A God powerful enough to create the world, should be able to keep its books straight.

 

And if its not dictated word for word by a divine entity, how do you know the difference, between say legend(which can produce contradictions) or lying(which can produce contradictions) and borrowed mythos(also can produce contradictions), misapprehension(of miracles) and real truth. Guess what you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Seriously, Josephus as a JEWISH historian. The Testimonium Flavianum has him saying that Jesus was the Messiah. Do you REALLY need to ask if there's evidence of it being an insertion?

 

Really?

 

Exactly!

 

I remember when I first started getting into apologetics, I bought a copy of Josephus because it was supposed to be historical evidence of Jesus' existence. When I looked up the Testimonium and read what it said, I was seriously baffled. How could someone make such praising comments about Jesus and yet reject him and refuse to become a christian? It didn't make sense to me at all. I wasn't familiar with interpolations at the time, so I wrote it off as being a very strange anomaly, but it still bugged me a bit. Now, of course, I realize that it was odd because it wasn't written by Josephus at all!

 

you wrote 'Other than pseudoepigraphic inserts into Josephus and Tacitus'

is there proof they were inserts?

 

Prochristian, even christian apologists admit that Josephus' Testimonium was tampered with by christians. Lee Strobel even talks about it in his very popular book "The Case For Christ," admitting that at least the praisy comments had to have been added by christians. He tries his damnedest to redeem the Testimonium as historical verification of Jesus, though, by saying that certain parts of the Testimonium were probably written by Josephus. However, that line of reasoning is highly problematic in that it has no evidence and is therefore nothing more than wishful thinking. Without any evidence indicating that part of the Testimonium is authentic (and there isn't any), the fact that it was obviously tampered with by christians makes the whole Testimonium suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you wrote 'THE most convincing argument against Christianity IS your so-called Holy Bible®. All one need do is READ the damn thing, and you should cease believing.'

why? because 'The fact that there are so many conflicting Bibles should be enough evidence to demonstrate how false the whole religion is.'

judges in court deal with different versions of testimony all the time and the common parts of each verify each other dont they?

you wrote 'What? "God" couldn't make up his mind? Didn't have enough control over things that he couldn't ensure only ONE book was written?'

what if gdo does not work that way? what if he did not dictate word for word.

these arguments are all way too weak.

 

'

 

Your arguments are way too weak. The "judges in court" thing, so often thrown around by christians, actually works against them.

 

In a court of law, the judge is supposed to try to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth. When conflicting accounts are presented, the judges do NOT automatically assume that BOTH accounts are accurate. They try to determine what really happened, what details are correct and what details are fabricated.

 

If you want to use this scenario in relation to bible contradictions, then you are effectively admitting that there are fabricated details in one or more of the accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bible itself, it's real (as best as modern historians can determine) history, and - oh, ya - the bible itself is the best argument against christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For me, it's the obvious fact that it is a complete rip off of all those older pagan religions.

 

Me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I think that there are so many arguments / evidence against Christianity that everyone will have their personal favorites and I doubt that there is going to be a huge front runner unless you boil it down to "lack of factual basis". It all really boils down to whether or not you accept faith -- belief despite lack of evidence -- or you require belief on the basis of evidence. The genius of Christianity is that it has managed to turn credulity into a virtue, at least within the context of god, the afterlife, the concept of sin and related matters, so that its claims can be taken as authoritative fact without requiring those "facts" to be vetted against reality or other commonly accepted standards of proof. Conversely, it's turned common sense (when applied to these alleged spiritual realms) into a vice.

 

As a former evangelical Christian, I find my main reason for leaving is still the most resonant with me -- the enormous gap between what the church says is real, and what is actually real. You can view a lot of things within that gap: human suffering / evil's incompatibility with a god who is both all-powerful and all-loving, disease, the (in)efficacy of prayer, the unsupportability of claims of scriptural inerrancy, and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.