Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 241 of 241
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Ways to disprove Christianity?

  1. #201  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Ophiolite said:
    daytonturner wrote:
    If we were to follow your criteria, we would be believing every crazy idea that anybody brought up, it is utterly ludicrous. ( do you believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun, that is on the direct opposite side of the sun to us, so we cant see it.) under your criteria you would have to accept this as a possibility.
    I didn't write that. Pavlos wrote that.

    But pavlos does not understand that the question is different from the question "Does God exist"?

    Transcribed, Pavlos' question asks, "Do you believe God exists?" This is a different form of question that is no longer rhetorical, but rather personal.

    I have given up hope that pavlos will ever understand the fullness of the concept of burden of proof in the context of a question which does not intrinsically establish a burden or present a presumption of an affirmative or negative result.

    If I were to ask the question this way, "God does exist doesn't he?" there is an implied presumption which becomes your burden to overcome only if you reply in the negative. If you reply in the affirmative, there is no disagreement and, thus, no burden. If there is a presumption, the burden of proof first falls on the side advocating against the presumption as in a criminal case where there is the presumption of innocence.

    The form of the question affects the nature of the response and what that response elicits. The first question, "Does God exist?" is a rhetoical question of fact and either answer incurs a burden of proof to support that answer. The second question "Do you believe in God," is no longer a rhetorical question but a question of personal preference requiring only an answer in the affirmative or negative, but no requirement to defend the position. The third question estabalishes a presumption which must be overcome by the negative response but not the affirmative response.

    Your assertion that someone "believes" there is a God does not confer on that person any onus to defend his position if he chooses not to. My assertion that you do not "believe" in God does not confer on you any onus to defend your position. I do not understand why you cannot see this and continue to insist that the coin has only one side.

    There are only so many ways one can explain this. If it doesn't get through, it doesn't get through.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    It's interesting that you mention something "not getting through," dayton. You're quite right, as that's exactly what's going on here.

    The fact that you are wrong, evasive, and illogical is not getting through... to you. There are only so many ways to explain this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    The difference between us, inow, is that I address issues, concepts, facts, thinking and ideas. You attack people. I can only assume this is because you have no issues, concepts, facts, thinking or ideas, which is why I so seldom reply to any of your slime tactics. Excuse me while I go shower to remove your slime.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The difference between us, inow, is that I address issues, concepts, facts, thinking and ideas. You attack people. I can only assume this is because you have no issues, concepts, facts, thinking or ideas, which is why I so seldom reply to any of your slime tactics. Excuse me while I go shower to remove your slime.
    Dayton, you may wish to contemplate the fact that my impression is - and has been for years - that you continuously avoid addressing issues through evasion, equivocation, misdirection, non-reaction, and other such devices. All this is done with great subtlety and a superficial impression of open discussion. When this is accompanied by a smug superiority and snide one liners it is hardly surprising that some members are unable to resist the odd personal comment.

    Alternatively, I'm talking bollocks, having no idea how to comprehend the simplest conversation. Nevertheless, the impression remains. It might be worth contemplating why such an impression exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It's interesting that you mention something "not getting through," dayton. You're quite right, as that's exactly what's going on here.

    The fact that you are wrong, evasive, and illogical is not getting through... to you. There are only so many ways to explain this.
    And after so many explanations I hardly think its worth the effort to keep trying.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Transcribed, Pavlos' question asks, "Do you believe God exists?"
    No it doesn't, it asks, " you say a god exist, I don't accept your claim" It at no time suggests or intimates that I think that no gods exist, (I repeat "The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence") it is plainly clear that I don't accept the claim that one exist without further evidence, it is that simple. Hence why, and why it always will be, the burden of the person making the affirmative claim.

    You have a preconception of what an atheist is and seem unwilling to accept that your preconception is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The form of the question affects the nature of the response and what that response elicits. The first question, "Does God exist?" is a rhetoical question of fact and either answer incurs a burden of proof to support that answer.
    Agreed if a person is claiming that no god exists, however nobody is making that claim this is where you err, (it's that preconception again) all thats being asked is "you've claimed that god exist can you support it, as I cant agree with your findings without further evidence"

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The second question "Do you believe in God," is no longer a rhetorical question but a question of personal preference requiring only an answer in the affirmative or negative, but no requirement to defend the position.
    Exactly, unless a new question is asked, IE "can you support your claim that a god exist" Because the person with the negative answer is not making a claim, they are merely answering "no", but will happily change their stance, if the person making the affirmative answer can support it's claim in regard to the new question.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The third question estabalishes a presumption which must be overcome by the negative response but not the affirmative response.
    What third question, elaborate.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Your assertion that someone "believes" there is a God does not confer on that person any onus to defend his position if he chooses not to.
    Well of course it doesn't, but he cant claim his beliefs true if he is unwilling to defend them. It however also gives me grounds to state he has no proof for his beliefs, thus his claims can be discarded as irrational beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My assertion that you do not "believe" in God does not confer on you any onus to defend your position.
    This where you err again, You keep insisting that I don't believe, whereas I simple do not accept your claims that a god exists, Here I'll clarify it for you. "We atheists lack belief in your god/gods, as we haven't been shown that they actually exists by the people making the claim that they do" Does that clarify it for you. I have no position to defend.

    This is the last time I'm going to try to explain it to you.
    As it appears by the response of other posters, that you like to troll a thread.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Thank you for your observations, Ophiolite. But does it occur to you that my opinion of the naturalist posters here is that their tactics are of a similar subtle nature designed to avoid and ignore consideration of any non-naturalistic input?

    All people who have opinions believe their opinions are correct. If they did not believe them correct, they would change them.

    The predominant belief system employed by the majority of posters on this forum is naturalistic. They vigorously advance and support that viewpoint. But, for some reason, they do not think non-naturalists should be allowed to vigorously advance and support their views. Having inspected other forums, however, I think overall, this forum is more open than most -- whether the other forum is of a naturalistic or religious orientation.

    But still, it seems rediculous that people here should expect me to provide naturalistic responses when that is not my position. My responses are not so much evasive as they are the result of looking at and responding to questions from a non-naturalistic viewpoint. You want naturalistic answers to naturalistic questions and I am not going to provide that. If you ask me what is A and B, and upon consideration, I feel the equation also involves C, I may focus my answer on C which I think is the real question more than A and B.

    Still, it seems those who advocate for non-naturalistic explanations of "stuff" are often run off. Michael became so disturbed that he is no longer contributimg and you still list him as the moderator of this section even though he has been gone ever since Skinwalker convinced (In)Sanity that his forum should not allow religious dicussion but should view religion as a scientific study. (I see no difference in subject matter content, however.) Cypress (?) was banned, but I never quite figured out why other than he was much more effective at arguing a non-naturalistic position than I am.

    A number of naturalist hatchet men have come and gone who, like inow now, merely use the religion forum as a platform for expressing their antagonistic disdain and disrespect for people who have religious convictions.

    I have read (or heard) discussion on these topics (God's existence, cosmology, teleology, death and resurrection of Jesus, reliability of scripture, Darwinism and I dunno what all.) from Dawkins, Hitchings and Gould and a couple of others who support Darwinism. My bet is that hardly anyone here who represents the naturalistic view has ever read anything by Phillip Johnson, Lee Strobel or William Dembski or any other design advocate. Rather, they accept the naturalistic view without question while believing there are no rational, reasonable responses.

    An "evasive" answer is usually my attempt to direct the questioner to a broader view of his question. It is really an attempt to open the discussion rather than cinch down on the narrow point of view that is often the basis of the naturalist's comments.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    pavlos asked:

    What third question, elaborate.
    The three forms of the question I posited were:

    1. Does God exist?
    2. Do you believe God exists?
    3. There is a God, isn't there?

    There was a thread here some time ago in which atheists and agnostics were arguing over who believed and didn't believe what and I don't think they ever settled it. However, the general view of these two postions is that the atheists claims no God(s) exists while the agnostic claims it cannot be determined if God(s) exists. But there is a secondary tendency to lump all these people into a general category of atheist. But you also have to consider that there is a difference between a theist and a deist. So it does become more complicated if you also attempt to categorize atheists and a-deists. I have no idea which of these categories you would place yourself. I would not find it important, since it is not your position on God that troubles me, it is your naturalistic view point.

    But back to the other thing for another way of looking at it. When there is a prevailing view on any topic, and a person wishes to challenge that prevailing view, then the burden of showing the prevailing view wrong falls upon the challenger.

    For this, you must determine the prevailing view and it may vary from population to population, from region to region, whatever the environment.

    I don't think my presense here has ever involve much in the area of asserting God's existence, but rather defending against assertions that God does not exist and naturalistic positions that exclude the existence of God. If I am on the offense, I speak out against naturalism or some offshoot therefrom. But, for the most part, I am always on the responding side, addressing someone else's assertion.

    My observation of forums is that trolling is generally going against whatever the prevailing view of the forum is. Thus Christians and other religious commentators are usually considered trolls on science forums while naturalistics are considered trolls on religious forums.

    There seem to be a lot of people around with only one leg who do not realize that there is always another shoe in a pair.
    [/tex]
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    ophiolite wrote:
    Dayton, you may wish to contemplate the fact that my impression is - and has been for years - that you continuously avoid addressing issues through evasion, equivocation, misdirection, non-reaction, and other such devices. All this is done with great subtlety and a superficial impression of open discussion. When this is accompanied by a smug superiority and snide one liners it is hardly surprising that some members are unable to resist the odd personal comment.
    My thought exactly.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    3. There is a God, isn't there?
    Lmao, Oh do come on, what an inanely stupid think to suggest, who has ever asked that type of question within a theist vs atheist debate. You've just got to be joking.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I don't think my presense here has ever involve much in the area of asserting God's existence, but rather defending against assertions that God does not exist and naturalistic positions that exclude the existence of God.
    Any so-called scientist who asserts that the naturalistic position of science excludes the existence of God is a willfully ignorant, dangerous, dishonest asshole. Now anyone who has implicitly claimed to have studied this matter as much as you have would know this. Yet here you are exemplifying perfectly what I have recently accused you of.

    Science pursues a methodological naturalism. The position is taken that the supernatural will not be readily subject to scientific study as a consequence of of its character. Science does not exclude God, but ignores God, or the possibility of god. Surely you are aware of this simple fact? If so, why are you obfuscating the position of science? If not you have little grounds to be critical of 'naturalists' who have failed to read any ID tomes.

    (By the way, I cannot speak for the others, but I have not only read Behe and Dembski and Johnson and Welles and Fuller, but have copies of most of their works on the shelves of my library.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    susan said:

    who has ever asked that type of question within a theist vs atheist debate. You've just got to be joking.
    It was about the form of the question as it might relate to extablishing a burden of proof.

    The shoot horses, don't they?

    Aren't you people able to see beyond the literal meanings of words to the principle being expressed? No wonder you have problems with philosopy and religion and other non-naturalist schools of thought. Do you not realize that your narrow naturalistic thinking limits your field of vision?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    susan said:

    who has ever asked that type of question within a theist vs atheist debate. You've just got to be joking.
    It was about the form of the question as it might relate to extablishing a burden of proof.

    The shoot horses, don't they?
    Yes, possibly in another context, but we are discussing god and religion, on a science forum and in that context it has no place.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Aren't you people able to see beyond the literal meanings of words to the principle being expressed?
    Of course when it is placed in the right context. You are trying to make the burden of proof something that it is not in this instance.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    No wonder you have problems with philosopy and religion and other non-naturalist schools of thought.
    We don't have a problem with it, we only wish you could clarify your position with some evidence, and not anecdotal, pseudo, philosophical bullcrap.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Do you not realize that your narrow naturalistic thinking limits your field of vision?
    Lmao, your calling us narrow minded, lol again, which one of us thinks a gods solves all humanities problems, which one of us doesn't look any further than that, lol. Give me a break.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    40
    I'm now 25 yrs old christian (because my family/clan were all christian) from Philippines and i do not believe in any superstition (so that includes god). When the right time comes, i will drop myself from being a christian for the sake of not to disgrace other's belief system. For me, its an insult to christianity to hold a christian title if i do not believe or practice it. My family/entire clan were all christian and im the single one that is a freethinker/atheist. I sometimes loss my temper and bark back whenever they go out of the boundary. What i mean is they will question you for curiosity at first. Well, im well aware that the holy book is mind healthy on some part but not factual. The conflict arise from the factual branch. They keep on insisting that human came from Adam and Eve, earth from 7 Days Creation of God, and language from Tower of Babell (for this one, i just heard it from neighbor christians when i was invited to participate in a discussion/debate). Some ignorant goons telling that it is rather ridiculous to believe that human came from monkey/ape. WHAT?! I never ever heard that science says that human came from monkey. My goodness. Very evidently that he/she didn't learn his/her science well during his/her school days. The thing about "human and monkey" is just a theory-like thing and science didn't support this obviously because of lack of supporting evidence (this is what i love about science, it dont claim a something a fact unless a strong evidence is held). Whatever logically thinking i do, it is impossible for me to believe such a claim. They said its because it was written on the book and the book was from the wordings of god and just written down by the apostles. Just because bible says so then its the real truth, how come they just embrace such claim without ever confirming it? They're unbelievable. First of all, starting from the root, where is the evidence showing that those are god's words? This is my only question to all those faithers i have clashed with but none of them give me an answer. Its just simple, lets apply theory of probability. It can be that the bible is just a mere creation of human. What i mean is even their claim of "its god's words" is a human craft. In court, judge wont say yes to a something (accusation, etc) without an evidence. Let say, if human was created by God, well not via something far to possibleness. In other words, not via Adam and Eve but via another way or event. I repeat this once more. For me, bible is mind-healthy book (its just like im reading encyclopedia, some manga, or a fable book) but NOT FACTual. This is obvious to us, freethinkers/atheists, those faithers think we are the abnormal. There was a german i meet online via a browser game. There one time he throw something at me when world chat's topic is about religion and he knows im from Philippines (but what he doesnt know yet is im half-chinese and half-filipino). This is what he said: Philippine is a very religious country. Depending on how sharp/good your perception/comprehension, you might just think of it as a compliment or the opposite way. Since im a half, im not monkey-level brained not to be able to see the odd of his sentence. If we act like a detective, the very clue lies to the word "very" (very religious). Now to the point, i look at it as an S level of racial descrimination. I admit that this german is intelligent. Too bad for him im not one of those rodents rolled on his palm. If we convert what he said, "Philippines is a VERY RELIGIOUS country" = Pinoy is as good (is as brainer) as the caveman. Why is that? We all know that if a person just easily believe on a superstition, that means he has a poor-working brain. The more intelligent the person is, the strong /sharp his logical thinking is. I hoped i explained it right. This is what i hate, its descriminatory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215 Re: Ways to disprove Christianity? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    I need a not too exceedingly complicated way to logically disprove Christianity.


    Thanks,
    Djakobsen.
    Professor C.S. Lewis sought to do exactly what you propound above when he was a professor at Cambridge, I believe. Ultimately Professor Lewis came to exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion.

    While he said that without God, life could have no purpose, and no meaning, it would be impossible for us to ascertain such things. Like a fish in water has no idea it is in water, how could humans know good from evil if such concepts are inconsistent with a universe which created itself out of nothing, and therefore which has no meaning, no principles, no good, and no bad?

    May I guide you to "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.
    There are other excellent books to help you think through what everyone goes through. To pretend that anyone should live a life without doubts is completely beyond the pale of all of us. Atheists certainly have doubts as well. They're simply far more clever at rhetoric and dishonesty. Atheist pretensions of intellectualism are terribly overstated.

    Here is a test for parents: If you had only two options, that either your child would be a brilliant intellectual and mass murderer, or else mildly retarded and loving, kind, and a joy to your entire family, which would you choose?

    Now for youngsters. Do you select your friends solely or even primarily on the basis of their intelligence? Or do you rather choose those who are friendly to you and everyone else and have similar interests as your own?

    Let us stipulate to the sickeningly overstated claim by atheists that they are INDEED smarter than Christians, on average. Does this mean that the atheist making such a claim is smarter than you and others reading his arrogant put-down to Christians? Not at all. He wishes to INFER as much, but it is merely a pretense, as so much else that atheists prattle.

    "The Case for Faith" is a wonderful book. So is "The Case for Christ."

    I will close with one story about Isaac Asimov, a very famous atheist, now dead.

    I read several of his books, which were replete with errors and ignorance. How shameful it is for a professed intellectual atheist to write so stupidly.

    Worse by far, Asimov famously was afraid to fly in aircraft. No, he only rode in buses and cars. How utterly IGNORANT since flying is one-tenth as deadly per mile as cars.

    Worse than that, Asimov neglected his OWN SON, who grew up to be a pedophile, arrested for having hundreds of illegal images of nude children on his computer.

    I wrote to the ignoramus about errors in one of his books, and he didn't bother to answer my charges. He simply wrote me a postcard calling me petty names. I sold it on e-Bay for $75.

    Oh yes. Asimov became an atheist after he prayed to God to help him pass a physics test in college. After failing the test, Asimov renounced God forever.
    "Science" at its best, eh? Be lazy, flunk, and blame God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    BarackZero? Trollin' here as well?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    24
    Isaac
    Great reasearch into theology, fundamental atheisim is in great error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by lot2do View Post
    Isaac
    Great reasearch into theology, fundamental atheisim is in great error.
    There is an error inherent in your simple one sentence post which refutes it entirely. By definition, fundamentalism is the strict adherence to specific doctrines and teachings coupled with unwavering belief in those teachings. Atheism is merely the lack of theism, the non-belief in god. There is no set of teachings. There is no doctrine. There is only the rejection of the doctrine of others.

    Ergo, you fail. It's so sad to see so many minds rotted due to religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    50
    1.) Telological

    2.) Cosmological

    3.) Ontological

    Learn them, see the inherent flaws in the arguments which support the idea, and die free.

    You can't disprove something that is by definition etheral and by necessity immeasureable, so instead of focusing on why God doesn't exist, crane your neck back and notice the complete lack of evidence that it does. Learn the correlation doesn't mean causation, and that on a planet of billions coincidence is a regular occurence. Understand the value of empirical evaluation.

    It's difficult to explain. You just have to wake up one day with enough knowledge that you see the world for what it is. Then, ironically, you'll probably find you value your life more than you ever did as a member of some "church."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad View Post
    If god were omnipotent, he would be able to create a rock that no human could lift... he would be able to create a rock that no machine could ever lift.
    If he were omnipotent he would be able to create a rock that even HE couldn't lift.

    But then, if he couldn't lift it he wouldn't be omnipotent.
    If he couldn't create that rock then he wouldn't be omnipotent.
    If you say that god doesn't interact with matter, so doesn't lift rocks.. then he is still incapable of lifting that rock that he created, or he is incapable of creating that rock. Either way he is not omnipotent.


    The real conclusion is that omnipotence is impossible and illogical. That pretty much rules out gods.
    This type of logic is a play on words, and not completely correct. Regardless, by religious definition, omnipotence grants you the ability to do anything, even the logically impossible. Therefore, if he were omnipotent, he would easily be able to create something he could not lift. But if required to lift it, he would be able to. The argument is itself a logical fallacy based on an incorrect definition of the word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Therefore, if he were omnipotent, he would easily be able to create something he could not lift. But if required to lift it, he would be able to.
    That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. They might as well name the Chuck Norris character in all the jokes their god. You know, being able to defy logic and all. It is patently absurd and illustrates exactly the kind of illogical thinking religious thought is characterized by.
    ylooshi and Falconer360 like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Isaac wrote:

    Here is a test for parents: If you had only two options, that either your child would be a brilliant intellectual and mass murderer, or else mildly retarded and loving, kind, and a joy to your entire family, which would you choose?
    Here is another test for you: If you had only two options, that either you are in the room with a beautiful lady or a rocket scientist, which would you choose? I guess that you probably choose the beautiful lady. But here is the thing: the lady may want to be a rocket scientist!


    Let us stipulate to the sickeningly overstated claim by atheists that they are INDEED smarter than Christians, on average.
    Any reference to support this statement?

    I will close with one story about Isaac Asimov, a very famous atheist, now dead.
    You are using this forum to avenge on a person long dead. How disgusting.
    Last edited by prasit; August 2nd, 2011 at 05:19 AM.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Isaac wrote:
    Let us stipulate to the sickeningly overstated claim by atheists that they are INDEED smarter than Christians, on average.
    Any reference to support this statement?
    Nyborg, Helmuth (2008). The intelligence-religiosity nexus: a representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37(1), 81-93.

    Nyborg found, through data obtained from the GSS and ASVAB results, that the more conservatively religious one is, the less intelligent they are. Conversely, the less conservatively religious one is, the more intelligent they were likely to be. Atheists were among those with the highest intelligence along with agnostics and liberal/moderate religionists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    So the claim seems not to be overstated, after all.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Lee, NJ, USA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen View Post
    I need a not too exceedingly complicated way to logically disprove Christianity.

    The reason is that i a few days ago took the choice not to believe in Christianity anymore, for logical reasons (mostly everything i read, suggests Christianity is wrong). I am a 15 year old person living in a Christian family, and they obviously want me to stay Christian. My parents can't convince me to believe again, and our arguments tend to end in my favor. For that reason, they decided we should invite the pastor this evening (to prove me wrong). ...
    Christianity is not one thing. Deal with individual claims made by Christian theologians. Addressing all claims at once makes no sense. And keep in mind that

    Religion = belief in God + many other things.

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by kowalskil View Post
    Religion = belief in God + many other things.
    Belief in god isn't even a requirement.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2
    Zeitgeist: The movie
    spoonman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    To disprove the notion of God, show that it is self-contradictory, such as that complexities cannot be First. Or show that the basis of All had to be eternal, thus there being no creation or Creator. Or show that there is literally nothing to make anything of, nothing being quite the opposite of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2
    You can never prove to your parents that Christianity is wrong unless they want to believe that. Why would you want to? If you are wishing that you had different parents, you are wishing to be someone other than who you are. It's better to enjoy being who you are, than to try to be something else. Perhaps your parents are struggling with the fact of you not being a child anymore, and learning to think for yourself. I recommend talking candidly with them, ask hard questions, and be cautious that you don't burn the bridge of friendship between you and them. You are lucky to have 2 parents, and different parents are hard to get. Allow your mind the freedom to explore, overcome your fear, and don't let anyone forbid you to speak your honest opinions, but please don't destroy your relationship with your parents, religion isn't that important.
    Post_nacz likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11
    The best way to disprove 'Christianity' is to demonstrate that theology, upon which all mono-theistic tradition is founded is not a valid human intellectual endeavor. And there appears to be something new happening no one ever quite expected, doing just that and could blow 'christian' history right out of the water. Questioning all theologically based 'christianity' is a wholly new interpretation of the Gospel of Christ. Radically different from anything we know from history or tradition, this new 'claim' and teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined personal experience in response to an act of perfect faith, a direct intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will and command, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Like it of no, a new religious truth claim, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria now exists and the implications defy imagination. Reading the manuscript, it becomes all too clear the difference between a true revelation and a theological imitation. To test or not to test, that is the question?
    More info at The Final Freedoms*|*Soulgineering
    "Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which they were created" A. Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    22
    read the sumerian clay tablet translations. the bible is plagiarized nonsense .
    religion is and has always been a social control mechanism. however, mankind has always acted from the subconscious ideal that consciousness is a fundamental force.
    "what I wonder about creation is wether god had a choice in the matter" Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Freshman lawsinium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    18
    The best way to disprove christianity is to compare them with Judaism.

    And of course study the ancient origin of the bible, religion, gods and the church .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    4
    First of all, we should bear in mind that religions have been created not to be disproved but to lead the mind in the correct path. They give us willpower in critical situations and make us believe that there is a higher being, whom we can trust and believe in, whom we can rely on, who can give us the determination to do the unfathomable.
    Don`t take religion as a burden but rather as a catalyst to lead a better life....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Do you mean you don't mind whether a religion is true or not, as long as it acts as a catalyst to lead a better life?
    Also note that it is not certain that we cannot lead a better life if we are not religious.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    4
    `True`?? On what basis can you say whether a religion is true or not? In this case, no religion in this world is TRUE as no religion has ever been PROVED.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    On basis of evidence. On basis of likelihood. On basis of logic. On the basis which you use in your everyday life.

    If a religion states that god created earth to be the center of the universe, then we can say that it is not true.

    If another religion states that ultimately, it is within yourself to decide to be happy or be miserable, then may be it is true.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    19
    Could a practical approach provide a useful model here (experimental theology ) ?
    Imagine you own an insurance company and you want to employ a manager who would take care of a big part of this business. What do you think will be a better option - to hire a specialist in probabilistics (science of purely random events) or a specialist in theology (pseudoscience? of putative God's motifs?). Hint (from ehow.com): "Insurance companies live and die by prudent risk management. The purpose of an insurance company is to determine the probabilities of risk and to design a premium structure ensuring that the company has a high chance of profiting in the future."
    Doesn't it question the model of the world as a good God's theatre?
    And another point: isn't it obvious that if there ever was a Guy who designed nature then he most certainly must have been a different Guy than the one who compiled the ten commandments? Aren't the rules
    "Thou shalt not kill.Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
    Neither shalt thou steal.
    Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife" violated constantly by nearly all living beings?
    And finally, would you call tender and just a father who has left his children unprotected out in the wilderness, leaving them not much more reason to believe in his love than a bunch of yellowish letters, posted before ages? And yet he threatens to condemn to eternal sufferings any one of his children if they lose faith in him!? Don't say his ethics is essentially different than ours - we are supposed to have been constructed essentially to be like him. Shouldn't it concern the ethics first of all?

    Last edited by Post_nacz; October 4th, 2011 at 03:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    There is an escape clause they can use when they do not have reasonable responses:
    God moves in mysterious ways.
    supernerd97 likes this.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    19
    And I heard that the Bible does not say how heavens move but how to move to heavens (or sthg. to this effect)
    Well, I tend to agree with the first part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The actual disproof for me was in observing how the philosophies taught in the Bible (and in my case the Book of Mormon as well) played out when applied to society. I found the results dissatisfying. Mormon culture didn't look any kinder or more hospitable than Protestant culture or even Atheist culture. Indeed, I felt the bond between family and friends was stronger and more sincerely felt among people who didn't profess a strong belief in God (though they might still have membership in some church somewhere that they never attend.) I was a Mormon missionary at the time, so I was meeting a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds by way of knocking on their doors.

    The simple disproof is to ask: "Would a perfect being create this philosophy?"

    For me, the answer was clearly "no". An imperfect, but highly intelligent human could do better. Therefore the philosophy could not possibly have been devised by a perfect, all knowing, god. Therefore, one of two things is true. Either

    A) - God does not exist.
    or
    B) - God exists, but did not write the Bible.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Forgive them father, for they know not what they do

    My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?


    A couple lines Christ supposedly uttered while up on the cross. Assuming Father means the same as God then......

    In line 1, does this mean Christ knows what God is doing?

    In line 2, does this mean Christ doesn't know what God is doing?

    Christ also says: Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit

    Does this mean that by only entrusting his spirit that Christ harbors some doubt as whether God will take care of it like he knows or thinks he knows? Is it a line more likely to be uttered in extremis by someone who has faith or direct knowledge?

    Personally I find that in the first line, for Christ to utter those words, He couldn't possibly be referring to committing murder? A state ordered execution is not murder and I think the populace understands that. Now he may be referring to the Romans but even then, the Romans knew exactly what they were doing, executing.

    Shit... I didn't realize this post got sent. It's not even finished. I was working on a new thread and something went wrong.... God? Anyway since it is here I suppose I'll have to try and disprove Christianity through Cross chatter analysis. Apologies.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; October 11th, 2011 at 07:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •