/t/ - Theology

Christian Theology

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: 5.00 MB

Max files: 3

Captcha
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(229.46 KB 480x360 Christieanity.png)
Christieanity is proven to be fake. Anonymous 01/12/2020 (Sun) 13:17:29 Id:2bda9c No. 1381
So hello. I'm an atheist. Christianity is proven to be fake its literally impossible for it to be true. In the spirit of constructive debate tell me what exactly would convince you that Christianity is fake? What evidence do I have to provide? If you can not answer this it shows a deeper problem with you, regardless of what evidence is shown you will continue to believe absurdities. Its a waist of my time to show all the numerous evidence if you will not accept anything. If this statement is confusing to you I give you a example the moon, we all accept the moon exists. Now what would it take to prove to ME that there is no moon? You try to answer this. For me it is simple if for 1 year i did not see the moon in the sky and tried it every night I seriously question or even conclude that the moon does not exist (at least now).
OK, let's discuss it. First, is English a second language for you? I ask because of the spelling and grammar errors, only because I want to make sure there's no misunderstanding. The challenge you're bringing is too broad and vague. Christianity is a religion that's really believed by millions, just like Islam or Atheism. None of these are fake. What you must mean are the supernatural claims of Christian theology. In particular, I think you're challenging the existence of God. Is that right? That is a claim we can debate. I'm going to restructure your question >What would convince you that the Christian religion is false? It would take a supernatural act of God revealing that Christianity is false and Islam/Buddhism/etc is true instead. I know as sure as I am breathing that there is a God. When you say Christianity is proven to be false and literally impossible to be true, what do you base this on? As an atheist, how can you explain the created world? Where did anything come from if there wasn't a creative force? You must agree that logically if there ever was nothing then there still would be nothing, since nothing can come from nothing. Classical philosophy all disagrees with you, and you've already removed "I don't know" as an answer based on your previous statements. Before you just say "the big bang", that's not an answer. The big bang theory is that all matter was in an extremely small point in space, but your challenge is to account for the existence of matter at all.
>>1381 Let's start with the larger question relevant to atheism: is there a deity? To prove to me that divinity does not exist, you would need to prove that fundamental physics does not exist. That is, an object at rest stays at rest unless it is put into motion. Every single thing in the universe obeys this fundamental law. There is absolutely nothing that any human has ever observed in all history that does not observe this law (and we never will observe something that does not obey this law). So you atheists try to argue that a deity does not exist. How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Our entire universe is made of the same substance that obeys can only be in motion if something placed it into motion. There must be a deity, some primordial CAUSE, otherwise there would simply be no universe. You are the one blinded by faith -- faith in a belief that flies in the face of tested, replicated, and accepted science.
(278.97 KB 420x306 tenor.png)
(48.16 KB 332x448 derry2.jpg)
>>1384 >First, is English a second language for you? Yes. >and grammar errors I like you to point this out(helps me improve writing). >None of these are fake Yes they are. >the existence of God >God That's a incoherent statement that after we do the song and dance of proving(Q/A) will be admitted is meaningless. See igtheism (atheists hate me :D ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDNL_3JRew0 >supernatural More words without meaning. >It would take a supernatural act of God You just wrote nonsense that assumed its own premises. Let me restate this for you: >It would take a supernatural act of the wizard of oz revealing that he does not exist So what evidence will you accept that would prove to you that the wizard of oz (yes just like in the movie) is a man behind a curtain who is making all of this up? >I know as sure as I am breathing that there is a God. I'm extremely certain that I sit on a chair however there are ways to prove to me that I don't sit on a chair that I will accept. So I want you to state to me out right that there is no evidence you will accept that will change your mind. Simply be honest no need to waist our time. Regardless whatever I prove or do you will not change your mind. No need to engage in discussion with the countless proofs that Christianity is fake since you will never accept them, sure we can post them to our blogs however discussing with people who from the start refuse to accept any evidence is pointless. Simply admit it and be honest with everyone. If there is a way for me to prove to you that Christianity is fake tell me it, I have countless proofs and lets boil it down to what is the most convincing to you. >As an atheist, how can you explain the created world? Ah the classic >Lets change the subject This is quite pathetic is it not? I tell you this straight even if we awoke not knowing anything about the world about history and evolution or anything we still know that Christianity is proven to be fake. Its as simple as demonstrating 2+2 >3 its irrelevant to talk about universal origins if from the start everyone can know that Christianity is fake its false wrong demonstratively with 100% certainty. Only why should I waist my time with people who will refuse all evidence? Tell me what will prove to you that Christianity is fake or wrong? If nothing will simply state this.
>>1385 Dude simply tell me what would prove to you Christianity is fake. If there is no proof simply say it and don't waist everyone's time. >that fundamental physics does not exist I told you how anyone can prove to me that there is no moon. What will convince you the earth has no moon? If you can not think of an example you should rethink your life. >deity Meaningless statement see igtheism. I just innumerate what nonsense you did write: >changing the subject >argument from ignorance >god of the gaps And others, all the classics. Try to stay on topic. Because I can not stop myself this is basically your argument >If the wizard of oz is fake how can you explain fundamental physics? You are against science! >Checkmate wizard of oz deniers, the wizard of oz must be real since he is the prime mover who started all of reality. Regardless how many times its shown to you that its just some guy making funny noises behind a curtain. This is your position every time you try the cosmological argument out of nowhere to change the subject. We have literal proof that christianity is 100% fake you trying to use it in the cosmological argument simply makes no sense whatsoever. Human guy making noises behind curtain can never be something you can use in the cosmological argument.
Righto, to convince me that Christianity is fake, there has to, among other things but most significantly; be without a shadow of doubt, a total disapproval of the claim to Christ's resurrection. And no, not some silly "but it's like literally impossiblé". It's a challenge of philosophy and history, not science. I apologise in regards to those outspoken partisan creationist buffoons. I don't apologise for believing in God who created the universe, the Christian/Jewish God, being the only true God, being a God; greater than the universe, outside of time (eternal), there being a special nature to mankind ->being made in God's image, -->not being animals thus not held to the same standard as animals, by a God that is all things good and just, that knows definitively the difference between good and evil, and that humanity through being given rulership over the Earth being granted free will and consequently choosing to do evil -by defying God, severed our connection with him and introduced all the suffering you see into our world, humanity afterward largely hated and turned their backs on God because we're all inherently arrogant -because evil was introduced, fallen demons, flood, covenant with God etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. -You just read a paraphrased form of Genesis -without the creationist hyper-literalism. Briefly, on the historical legitimacy of the Bible, has anything been disproven? There's absolutely 0 doubt as to whether Jesus was a real person who lived. What's contentious, what gives him his legitimacy to us is his resurrection from death on the cross. So either you find and dig up Jesus's own dead bones, prove that he didn't as we believe, ascend to heaven (won't happen) or at least, to weaken my faith (i.e "oh that's an amazing point, maybe Jesus was just a very special pious person and not God"), create a highly reasonable and historically backed explanation of the behaviour of his disciples after his death and claimed *resurrection,* specifically his hand-picked apostles -and St. Paul. And also an explanation to why Jesus's detailed prophesy of the Jewish temple being destroyed came true in 70AD. -the gospels containing the prophesy were written around 50-60AD. Jesus's time of ministry 32-35AD. Atheistically apologise away. So if the enemies of Jesus took his body from its tomb, they'd have shown it to disprove the disciples' claim of resurrection, of seeing and speaking to him alive. The Jews assert and I guess it's same for non-believers that Jesus's disciples stole the body out of the tomb and the disciples fabricate the multiple testimonies of meeting him alive. What's stirring for Christians regarding the latter claim, that Jesus's disciples stole his body is why would his apostles go, convert unprecedented numbers of people in short time (i.e in one of St. Mark's letters he claims to have converted around 7000 in and around Alexandria), never use force in doing so (unlike that barbaric moon cult) and eventually all of them minus one without challenge get brutally and horrifically martyred -why would they do all that for what they should have first-hand known was a lie? How could they or anyone go from completely despondent and dejected after his crucifixion to having the conviction, energy, belief and joy, (-just read their letters to each other) to give their lives without protest? Why would so many people give up their lives for some weird religion of a bloke who claimed he was God and it's said performed miracles yet died a humiliating death? Why this religion and it's set of moral codes? So that's the major jugular that any atheist/sceptic should try to sever. You find a way to explain in a way that makes total sense the claim of resurrection as false, by explaining without deifying Jesus the unprecedented actions of his disciples. Basically, this is our claim to fame: it is the hardest religion to have faked. -You can try and put forth an argument that we're nothing special but good luck. And may you too feel the love of Jesus in your heart. Amen.
>>1390 >total disapproval of the claim to Christ's resurrection So once more tell me what exactly would convince you that Christianity is fake? Present it in a coherent form not some strange rambling with yourself. Specific case of what if demonstrated to you will make you abandon Christianity. And no going back after this point is proven there is no changing the subject to a different point and pretending like you did not place everything on this one. Is it so hard for you to write this? I read this as: >If you prove the disciples faked the resurrection I stop being a christian? Is this what you are presenting? Simply state it normally. Because I guarantee you this is the simplest thing to prove. >historically Jesus mythicists are simply silly.
(33.78 KB 480x360 89134765.jpg)
>>1392 >If you prove the disciples faked the resurrection you'll stop being a Christian? See pic. But if you still want to try then by all means go ahead. What I was asking for is a fitting alternative explanation for the actions of Jesus's first and foremost disciples. They all peacefully went and got slaughtered trying (and succeeding) to spread Jesus-ism. Why bother doing that if they knew it were fake? >Because I guarantee you this is the simplest thing to prove. I think that you may very well be a logician, whilst I'm more philosophically inclined. This doesn't bode particularly well for trying to have a debate. We both seem to be approaching this from vastly different angles of reasoning. Perhaps first, you may instead like to try and argue that science has supplanted philosophy? You'd otherwise not really have a basis on which to really challenge my religious beliefs, which are largely philosophically woven, with history lending it extra fortitude.
(424.34 KB 1024x1024 FullMoon.jpg)
>>1393 >See pic. Pic says: >Well yes, but actually no What does that even mean? Are you backing out from your original claim? And we get back to the first point of the OP. What exactly would convince you that Christianity is fake? What evidence do I have to provide? If you can not answer this it shows a deeper problem with you, regardless of what evidence is shown you will continue to believe absurdities. Its a waist of my time to show all the numerous evidence if you will not accept anything. Its a waist of everyone's time. This is the question for you and you have chosen to waist everyone's time with bizarre rants you make to yourself. Like this: >>1390 > not held to the same standard as animals, by a God that is all things good and just, that knows definitively the difference between good and evil, and that humanity through being given rulership over the Earth being granted free will and consequently choosing to do evil -by defying God, severed our connection with him and introduced all the suffering you see into our world, humanity afterward largely hated and turned their backs on God because we're all inherently arrogant -because evil was introduced, fallen demons, flood, covenant with God etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. -You just read a paraphrased form of Genesis -without the creationist hyper-literalism. and this: >I think that you may very well be a logician, whilst I'm more philosophically inclined. This doesn't bode particularly well for trying to have a debate. We both seem to be approaching this from vastly different angles of reasoning. >Perhaps first, you may instead like to try and argue that science has supplanted philosophy? You'd otherwise not really have a basis on which to really challenge my religious beliefs, which are largely philosophically woven, with history lending it extra fortitude. It's not my job to guesstimate what will convince you. You should know what will convince you. You should think about this yourself. So once more what is the exact thing that will convince you? Provide the test that I need to fulfill. Now I will talk about something else to give some perspective on myself. WARNING DO NOT TRY TO ENGAGE THIS AS SOME ARGUMENT you are to provide yourself the exact proof you want then we can have this discussion. I like watching the moon at night. Everyone should the moon will not hurt your eyes unlike looking at the sun. However even thou I absolutely am convinced the moon is real with zero doubt there are ways to prove to me the moon is not real. 1 year of non stop observation and if no moon is seen I simply conclude there is no moon. Simple as that, the moons existence is not some dogma or something I consider ridiculous to question. This can look strange to you however this guards me from being an obstinate idiot. For example I did have a discussion like this with some guy. Not about the moon about windows 8 updates. Because I interact with windows 8 computers I know about its painful PC start up updates and less painful however bad PC shutdown updates. The guy I was talking to told me that since some date windows 8 is not getting these updates so its no longer a problem I called it BS/bogus. Now here is the thing who is right here? How can we prove this? After all my memory can be mistaken and I remember in a flexible timeline old start up updates. How can I prove this? I told the guy that if i get a start up update from this day forward I record it on paper with date and its proven that he is wrong. Do you think this is a reasonable approach? How long do you think I should wait before declaring that windows 8 has no start up updates? 1 year of no start up updates? I say 1 year and that would convince me that there are no start up updates in windows 8.
Like you can see we are debating methodology and what will convince me, I'm also talking about real things that can be tested. >b-b-b-b what about theology what about god and shhhh child we are talking about real things and reality. And how we can determine what is true. Then if we establish what has the best methodology for proving things and we can see the results we can use this to everything else. You need to consider that your theology is nothing more then absurd sophistry. This is why most intelligent people will laugh is anyone pulls the cosmological argument since you can deduce from basic principles and interacting with reality a methodology that instantly lets you interact with reality (its not science BTW) and is verified by reality to produce the most correct results. We can have no idea where we came from, throw the big bang out, evolution most history it makes no difference Christianity is still proven false by self evident realistic methodologies.(just for perspective so you know how analytics is related at this point to your Christianity) Now lets talk about the wizard of oz >b-b-b-b-b god, theology, muh christieanity, muh christian phylosophy No. We are now talking about a fictional example and what conclusions we can draw in it. I'm using the movie because its faster then constructing an example of my own. The fictional example lets you test methodologies you make a test and see if your methodology will arrive at the truth in this example, you need to simulate the characters in it correctly while you feed examples to the algorithm that will differently challenge it and the most truth detecting algorithm will remain. A side note is that this is why I find sophistries about cosmological arguments unintentional comedy. Since you can deduce yourself the most correct algorithm on your own, even if you woke up with no knowledge of anything before today and minimal knowledge about humans playing cosmological arguments is just silly since it takes only a handful of years(this will not be discovered in 1 day) to realize the correct algorithm and use it on Christianity to prove its fake.
(49.22 KB 500x333 mancurtain.jpg)
>>1393 So lets talk about the wizard of oz. Lets say we see a guy behind the curtain moving machines and the wizards voice tells us to pay no attention to that guy. Do you think the wizard is real at this point in the movie/time? I mean considering that its a fantasy movie with witches(who objectively can summon fireballs from their hands) you expected the wizard to be real in the beginning of the movie. And we all did see the fire and the green head of the wizard of oz. At what point do you think the wizard of oz is fake? Lets play devil's advocate. After all correlation is not causation so maybe the guy is saying the same words accidentally in sync with the wizard of oz? When will it become to absurd to believe the wizard is real? You tell me. Info dump Oscar Diggs is the name of the human who pretends to be the wizard of oz (I needed to check it on wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_of_Oz_(character) And lets not play the definition game of 1) Oscar Diggs exists 2) Oscar Diggs has no magic however says he is the wizard 3) Therefore Oscar Diggs is the wizard however the wizard has no magic powers. 4) Therefore the wizard exists/is real 5) check mate anti-wizardists We all know what we are talking about. A little note to people who obsess over the historicity of Jesus and Jesus mythicism. Now imagine some wizardist (lets pretend its a religion) shows up and while you can see the dog pulling at the leg of Oscar Diggs and says. >How can you doubt the wizard of oz! >How can you explain math/logic/the_universe/[insert name here] if there is no wizard of oz?!?!?!?! >All of these things need a prime mover and this timeless prime mover is the wizard of oz! >You can not even make an argument without assuming the wizard of oz is real! >check mate anti-wizardists! What would you think of this guy? Would you believe him? Or would you think its unintentionally comical and/or pathetic? Or how about this argument >We must place our faith in the wizard of oz, he is the creator of the universe >if he tells us not to mind Oscar Diggs the man behind the curtain who are we to question the wizard of oz? >Its not our place to question the wizard What would you think of this guy? Would you believe him? Or would you think its unintentionally comical and/or pathetic?
This is one of the reasons why these methodologies are a no go from the start. However I'm not here to debate methodologies with you or their validity, I'm just talking to myself and presenting myself to maybe inspire you to finally give me the subject you want to give me the exact criteria I must meet to prove to you that Christianity is fake, wrong (you get the idea). If there is nothing I can do that will disprove christianity for you there is no point in wasting our time here. Just simply say it officially. Let me give you some inspiration, so lets say time machines are real and we have one, we go back in time place some infra red cameras around the tomb of Jesus and you can see that the disciples are stealing the body. Only they don't know we can see it because they are stupid primitives who don't understand what infra red or a recording cameras are. Would this convince you Christianity is fake? I want you to answer this! How about if we have a cyborg insect fly that has a infra red micro camera on its head or some ultra sound camera and we can controlled it like a drone (perfect spy look this future tech up) and we monitor the tomb this way and we can see the disciples stealing the body and follow them to see where they dump it and after that we can come ourselves and see the dead body of Jesus and see it rotting the entire time and we place cameras to record this corpse 24/7 and we see wild animals eating the rotting flesh of Jesus. Will this prove to you that christieanity is fake? What will dude? What will? How about if we took a DNA sample of the blood of Jesus (plenty of that during the crucifixion etc) and DNA analyze the corpse we found and corroborated is Jesus to show that the DNA is identical? Will this prove to you that christieanity is fake? How about if I show myself to Jesus and using technology(flamethrowers projectors and pyrotechnics) convince Jesus that I'm god? And Jesus starts worshiping me? Will this prove to you that christieanity is fake? What will dude? What will? You tell me. I'm just giving you examples. If you have no idea or nothing will convince you simply say it. Make it official.
>>1381 >In the spirit of constructive debate tell me what exactly would convince you that Christianity is fake? What evidence do I have to provide? This is the toughest question an atheist has ever risen. God and religion are abstract, trying to prove any religion is fake is like trying to prove that math isn't real. I really don't think anything could convert me away from Christianity aside from, as the previous anon said, a supernatural experience that would reveal that another religion is the real religion. Reason being is that I philosophically agree with the church so strongly that even if I were to completely lose faith in the existence of God (how that would happen I'm still not sure), I would continue to practice Christianity. So I think what you're really trying to do is prove that abstract objects do not exist. >>1399 >Let me give you some inspiration, so lets say time machines are real and we have one, we go back in time place some infra red cameras around the tomb of Jesus and you can see that the disciples are stealing the body. Only they don't know we can see it because they are stupid primitives who don't understand what infra red or a recording cameras are. That would probably convince me that The Resurrection was fake. Good luck pulling it off. >>1399 >How about if we took a DNA sample of the blood of Jesus (plenty of that during the crucifixion etc) and DNA analyze the corpse we found and corroborated is Jesus to show that the DNA is identical? I really don't know if I would find this convincing. If Christ is an all-powerful God, he could easily change his DNA to match or not match the DNA test. >>1399 >How about if I show myself to Jesus and using technology(flamethrowers projectors and pyrotechnics) convince Jesus that I'm god? And Jesus starts worshiping me? That would probably convince me too. Again, good luck pulling it off.
>>1402 >Nothing will change my mind So want to be official with it simply say it. However ... Self contradiction time! >That would probably convince me >That would probably convince me too So what is it? Is it literally impossible for me to give you any evidence or are there ways to convince you? I'm actually asking. >good luck pulling it off The examples are impossible to do and require time machines. Earlier you told me nothing will convince you however these examples will??? What is your argument? And rethink your life if you did not think of the time travel example before. There are other ways to establish proof of the past that don't require time travel. Can you think of any that are possible to be made by me?
(12.79 KB 208x243 1574596254523.jpg)
>>1416 That's some other anon. What he says regarding philosophically agreeing with Christianity is my exact same position. But if you'd read my previous messages you'd already know that. Here's what you wanted: Yes, I'd renounce my religion if you built us a DeLorean and were able to show me that Jesus was just an ordinary man, who didn't rise from the dead. >And rethink your life if you did not think of the time travel example before. I didn't think of it because it's an absurd idea and to be quite frank, childish. Considering you're the one peddling the atheist pill shouting "science", you should know the prevailing scientific consensus that time is relative, but events in the future are not necessarily predetermined. Note that this actually ties in excellently with the Christian idea of God. We believe that God knows all potential outcomes of the future, but what happens in the present is our choice. >There are other ways to establish proof of the past that don't require time travel. Enlighten us. >Can you think of- Find me an sentient alien civilisation. Unlike a time machine I imagine it's actually possible. By finding other sentient lifeforms, the biblical idea that humanity is made in God's image (basically that we're special) will be heavily called into question.

Delete
Report

no cookies?