Has Christianity finally been debunked?

[verklingen]

sorry it's just that completely ignoring the logical and reasonable points made by some people in this thread is pretty sucky. that and refusing to understand that your whole argument hinges on logical fallacy, labeling people in diminutively demeaning ways from your standpoint, etc . that's pretty sucky too.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

I don't need to be lectured on what debunks Christianity and what doesn't. I can recognize it for myself. The piece I directed people to lives up to its title whether you agree or not.

Frankly, you have a lot of nerve debating something that you didn't even read.

Yes, you can recognize it for yourself. That's the beauty of personal belief.

But what you believe has nothing to do with whether or not the article, or your argument holds water with anyone else.

In fact, you are exhibiting the very thing you seem to take issue with regarding christians...inabili ty to hear opposing views and see "the truth."

Whatever, I don't think you're actually listening here.

[kamikazi89]

me thinks he's just looking for an arguement..when in fact he could find much agreement(i.e. christian dogma) throughout the thread

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by verklingen

sorry it's just that completely ignoring the logical and reasonable points made by some people in this thread is pretty sucky. that and refusing to understand that your whole argument hinges on logical fallacy, labeling people in diminutively demeaning ways from your standpoint, etc . that's pretty sucky too.

It needs to be pointed out what the extent of your argument is:

1) It's illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge besides what the Christians say he did.

2) It's equally illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge of the natural world that other people of his time didn't know despite the fact that he was supposedly one in the same with the being who created the natural world.

The only thing I have to say to that is I hope that both you and JcP really believe that. In fact, I sincerely hope that you and JcP never stop believing that!

Yeah... I think that's pretty much about all that there needs to be said on that matter.

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

I don't need to be lectured on what debunks Christianity and what doesn't. I can recognize it for myself. The piece I directed people to lives up to its title whether you agree or not.

Uh huh...

The reasoning in your post all depends on a very specific "standing" of Christianity on certain issues. This ignores the interpretative and thus relative and subjective reality of religion as a whole. A reality that even the author of the essay gave credibility to in the beginning of his essay, effectively canceling out what was to follow. While it's an interesting approach to that specific interpretation of Christianity's teachings, the likelihood you will encounter that specific interpretation is not very high. It does not, by any means, debunk Christianity as a whole.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

Frankly, you have a lot of nerve debating something that you didn't even read.

Why are you saying that? I read your posts. That's all I've been debating.

[ziplock]

Just going to double post, stoned and lazy right now.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

It needs to be pointed out what the extent of your argument is:

1) It's illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge besides what the Christians say he did.

2) It's equally illogical and invalid to ask whether Jesus ever exhibited any knowledge of the natural world that other people of his time didn't know despite the fact that he was supposedly one in the same with the being who created the natural world.

It'd be speculation, speculation can be logical. Validity is another matter, but I don't know how a question can be invalid. Haven't really heard someone say "that's a wrong question!" I'm saying question of course because you're talking about asking.

Also, a lot of what's been directed towards you hasn't been a counter argument so much as pointing out logical inconsistencies within your reasoning. Inconsistencies which you tend to avoid more than address and reconcile.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

The only thing I have to say to that is I hope that both you and JcP really believe that. In fact, I sincerely hope that you and JcP never stop believing that!

I can't speak for the two of them but from what I've gathered their beliefs aren't really "grounded" or centered around any one particular religion. I have to say that I would define myself as the same. Again, they just seem to see similar inconsistencies and illogical steps that I do. I dunno really how many more ways this can be reiterated.

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by ziplock

Just going to double post, stoned and lazy right now.It'd be speculation, speculation can be logical. Validity is another matter, but I don't know how a question can be invalid. Haven't really heard someone say "that's a wrong question!" I'm saying question of course because you're talking about asking.

About the only thing the posts that you've made to this thread have done is try to twist syntax in a veiled attempt to dodge the real issues. And this one is a perfect example of that. Would you cut with the syntax games, Mr. Dodgeball. You're not fooling anyone anymore, if you ever were in the first place. It gets old. You know what the fuckin point is, damnit!

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

About the only thing the posts that you've made to this thread have done is try to twist syntax in a veiled attempt to dodge the real issues. And this one is a perfect example of that. Would you cut with the syntax games, Mr. Dodgeball. You're not fooling anyone anymore, if you ever were in the first place. It gets old. You know what the fuckin point is, damnit!

Holy shit I feel like I'm talking to J-wonder... Wow... You fail again and again to address specifically anything brought up that contests your view. It's hilarious. You either appeal to authority through your little essay, or you simply go all ad hominem. You clearly have a very small grasp of anything representing formal debate. Your logic is flawed and pathetic. I'm not trying to fool anyone. I've presented to you the dilemmas I face when trying to accept your logic. You have failed to reconcile anything or even address what has been said.

The fucking point is that this essay, your logic, all of it, means absolutely fuck all to any Christian or reasonably minded individual who reads it. Nothing, it's insubstantial. Why? The myriad of reasons I've listed again and again. Straw man arguments, appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, on and on. It's like you're a walking, talking fallacy. I mean for fuck sake there's a whole field of study about Jesus being the son of God called Christology. Look it up.

Hopefully you can wrap your clearly contorted mind around this "fact". I doubt it.

[JcP]

I don't understand why citizen abuse thinks anyone who disagrees with his LOGIC is out to prove Christ was the son of God. Just because your argument doesn't hold water does not mean the conclusions are incorrect.

[spicoli]

i read the article again, and i must say, it is useless. it is one man's opinion, and an uninformed opinion at that.
to call the Bible hearsay, is ignorant. you cannot use the legal definition of hearsay to apply it to the Bible, and even if you do, some of what you are reading would be admissable in court.
Hearsay as an excuse for ignoring history
the Bible, Old and New Testament, contains eyewitness accounts of events. Period. Whether you choose to believe those eyewitness accounts is your decision. it also contains parables and rumored events, yes. but to dismiss it all as hearsay is ridiculous.
the author also brings science into the mix. i might also mention he states that Christians are delusional. Some of our world's leading esteemed and respected scientists are Christians. They have made discoveries that answer questions we never thought we'd have answers to. Are they delusional, too?

[ziplock]

Alright, sober second look. I wasn't in the best state of mind last night to be posting.

Now I'm going to make one single point and I am interested in how you address it. The rest of what's been said can be ignored.

You submitted that you have found reason that debunks Christianity. This of course calls for a definition of Christianity and who qualifies as a Christian. Both Christianity and what qualifies as a Christian is ambiguous. There are numerous denominations and countless personal interpretations of both of these terms which provides a large amount of diversity in belief under the umbrella label of Christianity.

To some people being a Christian requires the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God, as the savior, his life, death, and resurrection, so on and so forth. For others it could simply be a follower of Christ (which is what the word Christian means). How one can follow Christ is again varied and open to individual interpretation. Christology as I brought up in my last post shows how varied the beliefs and views surrounding Jesus Christ and God can be.

What this all shows is the vast diversity of Christianity and the difficulty in establishing a set, standard, and specific definition of the "beliefs" that qualify as Christian. The essay you submitted is full of generalization regarding Christians. "They wage war on...." No, they don't. Some do, but not all. So you cannot say "They" in reference to all "Christians".

You cannot say that all Christians believe what is outlined in the essay, due to this diversity I just pointed out. It then necessitates the assumption of a group's beliefs. This assumption cannot be said to be fact. This assumption is then ascribed to a certain people. You cannot say that this is in fact their belief, only what you believe their beliefs to be. You cannot then say you debunk Christianity, but only a small portion of it that does adhere to your specific, assigned beliefs. This is what is known as a straw man argument and is a logical fallacy of the most popular kind.

Due to this, all the reasoning that follows is built on a false, assumed premise. Logically then what follows is false. Basic logic. So then, in order for me to carry on and start assessing the logic and reason that builds up the case, I have to reconcile this dilemma with the premise. Do you have anything to offer?

[kamikazi89]

Originally Posted by spicoli

the Bible, Old and New Testament, contains eyewitness accounts of events. Period. Whether you choose to believe those eyewitness accounts is your decision.

incorrect

[spicoli]

my bad, the New Testament should have been the only Book in my argument.
you are correct, kamikazi

[kamikazi89]

Originally Posted by spicoli

my bad, the New Testament should have been the only Book in my argument.

it's extremely doubtful

Originally Posted by spicoli

Whether you choose to believe those accounts is your decision.

absolutely

[spicoli]

^what's doubtful?

btw, it's my truth. and it's the truth for millions upon millions of people.
the point of this thread was to the essay?
in answer to the question of the op:
No.

[kamikazi89]

if that's the case: buddhism ftw

Originally Posted by spicoli

^what's doubtful?

just the facts