No one Murdered because of this image! - TheOnion Special!(NSFW)

Well we do know for a fact that two of every species was not placed onto an ark. We also know for a fact that there has never been a flood that would cover the earth in anywhere near enough water to make Mt. Ararat a landing place for the ark. There are literally countless examples of errors but I don't think I need to dig out my Bible do I?

The Flood? Really? What year was the flood? Ever hear of literal Biblical Scholars and a Regional Flood? I've even read anti-flood anti-religion papers that allow for a literal interpretation of the text in its original found texts that allow for a regional flood. They knew that was a losing argument. Same with "kind" and land species. As for the topography of the earth. Once again, ever read the regional flood scholars? Ever consider divine changes in topography in order to support the future separation of races and civilizations?

Ever hear of a miracle? I can tell you water cannot be made instantly into wine, but this will not disprove anything to a Christian. How many "kind"'s of land species were there at the time? Can an angel kill thousands overnight? Can anyone? I am trying to say that this is not how you disprove the Bible. You are too easily refuted and going for what you perceive to be low lying fruit.

This is why you lose the argument.

The historicity of the Bible would have to be attacked showing archaeological proof that the Bible says X and this proves Y. Otherwise you once again speak to a brick wall. I am trying to show how to win the argument and not feel like you are hitting this wall.

Prophecy is the real trick. Find a prophecy that was not fulfilled and you have something. By the way do not point to when Jesus says about his return before this generation passes. A first year Bible student can show you the texts and definitions and easily prove to you Jesus was talking about the generation that saw the signs he was talking about, not the current generation. This I covered in a previous thread.

So many think that Christians are stupid. Well guess what, many are. They are ignorant to the foundation of Christianity. But so are most of those against Christianity - The pathetic YouTube videos and even lectures by anti-religion PhD's are sad. They all talk like they know everything and yet could not hold a minute when confronted with the scientific examination the Bible has been under for decades.

Prophecy is the cornerstone. Find an error and the house tumbles.
 


pZp5G.jpg
 
Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

I am telling you how. The statement was made that it is hard to argue with a brick wall. I am explaining the situation and how to handle it.

The Christian believes that they have a historical text. They believe in its original form that it is 100% true and accurate. They have shown how all supposed inaccuracies are not. There are plenty of books on the subject a few of which I have read.

They believe they in fact have a series of prophecies written about decades and centuries provable and that these prophecies were fulfilled. Something that if known should convince anyone that studies them.

The skeptic says, "you believe in an unprovable sky fairy", and the Christian points to the above and says, "what about it?"

The battle is on fulfilled prophecy.

Tell the Christian how the text is inaccurate in its original form, or even in the form that has been found thus far. Show a disciple that recanted. Show where miracles documented in the Bible were said to not have happened in the texts of the time. Show where they are wrong.

You all think that Christianity is this one dimensional thing that can be scoffed at without examination. Not every Christian is the stupid student next to you or the false teacher on the television that does not stick to the scripture like Haggard etc.

The problem is that most of you cannot do it. Too lazy.
 
The problem for Christians is that the entire religion is based on the belief that the Bible is 100% accurate. If the Bible is not 100% accurate, then it calls into question whether or not Jesus was really the Son of God who died for our sins etc. Since there are a lot of factual errors in the Bible (math errors, genealogy errors, archaeological errors, celestial errors, etc) then the entire basis for the religion is suspect.

The same could be said for any religion so I don't mean to single out Christianity.
 
Do you follow any sports teams?

If you've ever held out for a late game 3-pointer, a touchdown with seconds remaining, or a suicide squeeze in the bottom of the 9th despite the high probability that none of those things would happen, you probably get faith more than you think.

Obviously, I'm grossly oversimplifying things here, but you can make an argument that individuals of faith live in a world where "anything is possible", and this certainly includes come from behind wins.

My problem with this is that there are degree's of probability. We have all experienced "miraculous" comebacks or know of teams who have, so the faith is based on something that has been experienced by many. I'm not sure if it's relatable to the faith religion proposes.

When was the last time any of us saw someone part the sea, walk on water or heal lepers with their bare hands?

Granted there is a probability that those things happened, same way there is a probability that the physics that govern our environment ceased to exist to allow those events to happen.
 
My problem with this is that there are degree's of probability. We have all experienced "miraculous" comebacks or know of teams who have, so the faith is based on something that has been experienced by many. I'm not sure if it's relatable to the faith religion proposes.

When was the last time any of us saw someone part the sea, walk on water or heal lepers with their bare hands?

Granted there is a probability that those things happened, same way there is a probability that the physics that govern our environment ceased to exist to allow those events to happen.

I'm not really talking about a literal interpretation of any religious text, it's more of a general outlook that allows for faith to exist.

I think individuals of faith tend to be more openminded than their atheistic counterparts, and may even benefit from this outlook in terms of "thinking outside the box"

Inbetween making considerable contributions to anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics, creating artwork on par with the greatest masters of the medium, and proposing the theory of plate tectonics, DaVinci found a lot of time to write about God, and he wrote about God as though "he" existed, as though there were no question.

I wonder if his ability to believe in ideas without needing to see proof allowed him to pursue some of his thoughts that he might otherwise have abandoned.
 
The problem for Christians is that the entire religion is based on the belief that the Bible is 100% accurate. If the Bible is not 100% accurate, then it calls into question whether or not Jesus was really the Son of God who died for our sins etc. Since there are a lot of factual errors in the Bible (math errors, genealogy errors, archaeological errors, celestial errors, etc) then the entire basis for the religion is suspect.

The same could be said for any religion so I don't mean to single out Christianity.

The problem with your thought flow is that you are assuming all of the errors when in fact there are not any that cannot be reasonably explained.

For instance those that think Pi should be perfectly laid out in the bible when measurements were given - as if the Potter would not know what was meant. Yet the Bible is not a science nor math book. Others think a genealogy is wrong when one is of a father and the other a mother. Then others that highlight the counting of soldiers. The Bible says there were, say, 13 thousand and really there were 13,345 or some crap like that. I mean interpret it with reason.

Are there facts that are absolutely not true - beyond a reasonable doubt? Good Luck with that. The errors you point out do not exist beyond reason.
 
When arguing doctrine, you will lose, its fully vetted

OK, here is where we would have to define "doctrine" and "vetted", cause I'm not sure how it's been vetted that a guy lived 950 years, a virgin had a baby, or whether a not a baptism is necessary for something or other.

Historicity and prophecy. Find an error in there and you take out the Christian.

At least Nostradamus would still be standing.. It's mostly the evangelical Christians that concern themselves much with prophecy.


"Forty percent of all Americans and 45 percent of Christians believe that the world will end, as the Bible predicts, in a battle at Armageddon between Jesus and the Antichrist, according to a new Newsweek Poll on prophecy.

Fully, 71 percent of evangelical Protestants, but only 28 percent of non-evangelical Protestants and 18 percent of Catholics share that view."


Prophecy poll pegs belief in Armageddon


Show a disciple that recanted. Show where miracles documented in the Bible were said to not have happened in the texts of the time.

This is the equivalent of telling a Star Wars non-believer to show you a Jedi Knight that recanted, or a newspaper article about Yoda not having powers.



:angel:



The problem for Christians is that the entire religion is based on the belief that the Bible is 100% accurate. If the Bible is not 100% accurate, then it calls into question whether or not Jesus was really the Son of God who died for our sins etc. Since there are a lot of factual errors in the Bible (math errors, genealogy errors, archaeological errors, celestial errors, etc) then the entire basis for the religion is suspect.

The same could be said for any religion so I don't mean to single out Christianity.

Well, there are religions such as Unitarian Universalists; and Buddhism has more to do with teachings about how to live your life and such, which isn't dependent on historical accuracy.
 
OK, here is where we would have to define "doctrine" and "vetted", cause I'm not sure how it's been vetted that a guy lived 950 years, a virgin had a baby, or whether a not a baptism is necessary for something or other.

When I say "doctrine" I am referring to the overall traditional Christian belief system. You are not going to have a "gotchya" moment in a discussion with a so called brick wall Christian over the Trinity or other elements of doctrine. At least not with a traditional Christian. Remember I was advising on how to get through to Christians, to get past their perceived "brick wall" of stubbornness. I was saying you will not get anywhere discussing "doctrine" because it has been fully examined every way possible.



At least Nostradamus would still be standing.. It's mostly the evangelical Christians that concern themselves much with prophecy.

"Forty percent of all Americans and 45 percent of Christians believe that the world will end, as the Bible predicts, in a battle at Armageddon between Jesus and the Antichrist, according to a new Newsweek Poll on prophecy.

Fully, 71 percent of evangelical Protestants, but only 28 percent of non-evangelical Protestants and 18 percent of Catholics share that view."


Prophecy poll pegs belief in Armageddon

Prophecy is not just about the "end times" and Armageddon. Common error of misunderstanding.


This is the equivalent of telling a Star Wars non-believer to show you a Jedi Knight that recanted, or a newspaper article about Yoda not having powers.

Nice joke placement but not relevant. You are now telling me that Mathew, Mark, Luke, John etc never existed? Do you even believe Jesus existed as a historical figure?
 
I was saying you will not get anywhere discussing "doctrine" because it has been fully examined every way possible.

And these examinations lead back to doctrine being the belief in things that can't be proven, which is different than something that has been vetted or has held up to scientific inspection. A virgin birth contradicts current scientific understanding, for one example of many.

Prophecy is not just about the "end times" and Armageddon. Common error of misunderstanding.

Past prophecy seems to also be more of a fundamentalist thing.

Nice joke placement but not relevant. You are now telling me that Mathew, Mark, Luke, John etc never existed? Do you even believe Jesus existed as a historical figure?

My personal beliefs are not relevant to your logic being confusing. You were talking about people who question the accuracy of the Bible, but then challenging them to use quotes from Bible figures to negate the Bible. Your logical fallacy is begging the question


"I don't believe in scientology."

"Show me where Tom Cruise recanted. Show me an article that says Tom Cruise is not being watched over by a spaceship."
 
whether or not Jesus was really the Son of God who died for our sins etc.

why, why, WHY?????

what the fuck is this? It doesn't even make sense. The almighty jewish god impregnated a woman with his will and created a son, which has to die for the sins of humanity? WTF? do you realize how stupid that sounds? Just step back and think about the situation.
 
And these examinations lead back to doctrine being the belief in things that can't be proven, which is different than something that has been vetted or has held up to scientific inspection. A virgin birth contradicts current scientific understanding, for one example of many.

Past prophecy seems to also be more of a fundamentalist thing.

My personal beliefs are not relevant to your logic being confusing. You were talking about people who question the accuracy of the Bible, but then challenging them to use quotes from Bible figures to negate the Bible. Your logical fallacy is begging the question

"I don't believe in scientology."

"Show me where Tom Cruise recanted. Show me an article that says Tom Cruise is not being watched over by a spaceship."

Your points are not relevant to the specific context of this thread. This was not meant as a general religious argument. The specific context is that I was answering a post about how oftentimes talking to Christians about their beliefs is like talking to a brick wall.

My posts ITT were all made in that context. My posts were how to get around that wall and talk to the Christian in areas where you can have a discussion. That is why I said you cannot debate Doctrine. Because the logical consistency of it for a Christian is sound. You will not get anywhere because 99.9% of all non-Christians, even here on WF, have no idea what they are talking about. They quote scriptures without any understanding of the depth of that quote in the context of the entire religion and therefore their argument falls flat.

Once again, my posts ITT were about getting around that wall. Not whether non-Christians should believe or not believe the specific doctrine.
 
why, why, WHY?????

what the fuck is this? It doesn't even make sense. The almighty Jewish god impregnated a woman with his will and created a son, which has to die for the sins of humanity? WTF? do you realize how stupid that sounds? Just step back and think about the situation.

You're right. It does not make sense. Because you of course understand Christianity so thoroughly that you know that it all is summed up as simple as that and of course, being Man, you can stand tall and let your Creator know how things should be handled.
 
You're right. It does not make sense. Because you of course understand Christianity so thoroughly that you know that it all is summed up as simple as that and of course, being Man, you can stand tall and let your Creator know how things should be handled.

I have read the bible.

That is enough for me to tell from a mile away that it is all bullshit.
 
I think they probably are. Most of the christian orphanages or such organizations which I know in India convert people and that's why people are lashing out. They get funding from the western countries and use a significant portion of that money for converting people. I personally know a few who converted to Christianity for money (They were very poor and were doing janitorial jobs for few rupees) People in the US give some $$ for such charity works and in the third world this money is often used for conveying (People get the benefit only if they convert).
However, attacking such Churches or orphanages are not acceptable. I personally don't give a fuck about these religious conversions because it's their life and their choice.

I second this. Here in India it pretty much happens and missionaries are working for it. As faceblogger said they target poor pplz.

I must also add here in convent schools kids are being trained towards christian religion and these schools are well reputed here as they gets heavy funds and facilities from Western countries.
 
why, why, WHY?????

what the fuck is this? It doesn't even make sense. The almighty jewish god impregnated a woman with his will and created a son, which has to die for the sins of humanity? WTF? do you realize how stupid that sounds? Just step back and think about the situation.

I was about to call you a fucking retard, until I realized that there is no way that English is your primary language, so I'll take it easy on you.

Yes I do realize how silly that all sounds and that is why I am not a Christian. If you'll re-read what I wrote maybe it will make more sense to you now.

@REIMktg - when an entire religion is based on a virgin birth, it's hard to get anyone with a scientific mind to take it seriously. And if you study the old pagan religions you'll see that as silly as the idea of a virgin birth is, the idea goes back thousands of years before Jesus was born. So not only was it a silly idea, but it wasn't even an original idea.