Has Christianity finally been debunked?

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by kamikazi89

you know what they say..beauty is in the eye of the beholder

4 Sure...........

[kamikazi89]

for arguments sake, let's say it's evolved through the years, and remains a relevant part of many peoples lives (both as literal truth(for them, and allegory)
and though it may not be universally accepted..practising tolerance is good for our species as a whole)

[The Second Law of Thermodynamics]

regardless of what you believe about jesus, that article is a classic straw man. it sets up it's version of how things should be and then debunks it. essentially, they are saying if X then Y but if you don't accept their X the whole article becomes meaningless.

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by kamikazi89

you know what they say..beauty is in the eye of the beholder

also correct

[kamikazi89]

Originally Posted by The Second Law of Thermodynamics

regardless of what you believe about jesus, that article is a classic straw man. it sets up it's version of how things should be and then debunks it. essentially, they are saying if X then Y but if you don't accept their X the whole article becomes meaningless.

i didn't really read the article..thread title is enough for me

[matthewmunari]

then comment on the subject

[kamikazi89]

been there & done that..
have fun

[matthewmunari]

do it again

[kamikazi89]

i plan on it, @ my discretion..of course

[matthewmunari]

of course.........me 2

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by The Second Law of Thermodynamics

regardless of what you believe about jesus, that article is a classic straw man. it sets up it's version of how things should be and then debunks it. essentially, they are saying if X then Y but if you don't accept their X the whole article becomes meaningless.

anything is possible, like Verks. tagline says,if it were impossible you couldnt think of it,..or something to that effect..

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by ziplock

MY GOD! YOU CAUGHT ME! I MISQUOTED! OMGGGG....

Anyways. Sorry on the lack of inclusion of "know" as it is oh so pivotal. So let's talk about misquoting... When did I say the essay this thread is based on questions Jesus' existence? I haven't read the essay so I don't understand why I would comment on it (mind you I am usually quite stoned when posting here). I was commenting on your so-called facts.

First, if you didn't read the essay you shouldn't be commenting on it. The facts that I listed, and you responded to, were based on what the essay says. When it says everything we know about Jesus is hearsay, it then goes on to discuss the wild claims made about him.

However, for discussion sake, I'll change the wording to accommodate you:

With the exception of whether he existed or not, everything we know about Jesus is hearsay.

There. Let's see you spin it now.

[citizen abuse]

Originally Posted by The Second Law of Thermodynamics

regardless of what you believe about jesus, that article is a classic straw man. it sets up it's version of how things should be and then debunks it. essentially, they are saying if X then Y but if you don't accept their X the whole article becomes meaningless.

The article just makes the simple point that if the Christian god and his son were who the Christians say they were there would be certain things that we should observe when we look back besides hearsay. Very simple point. Doesn't take a genius to understand.

There are people who need more than hearsay. They make the logical argument that there should be evidence of some kind or another. The article gives several kickass-good examples, whether you agree or not.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

The article just makes the simple point that if the Christian god and his son were who the Christians say they were there would be certain things that we should observe when we look back besides hearsay. Very simple point. Doesn't take a genius to understand.

There are people who need more than hearsay.

the article's "point" is an opinion held by the writers. As Ziplock has said, they are picking the parameters and then disproving it. That's called a strawman argument.

You seem to be held up on the fact that no one is debating with you over whether Jesus was or was not real or not. We're pointing out that using the reasoning you are presenting from the article is not a competent argument.

That certainly doesn't take a genius to understand either.

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

They make the logical argument that there should be evidence of some kind or another. The article gives several kickass-good examples, whether you agree or not.

That's not an argument based on logic, that is an argument based on what they believe the son of God should or should not do. PERSONAL OPINION. It uses logic to express itself, but that doesn't make it a logical argument.

To suggest that because Jesus doesn't meet their parameters that he either 1) wasn't the son of God or 2) didn't exist is a terrible argument.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope that clears it up!

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by citizen abuse

First, if you didn't read the essay you shouldn't be commenting on it. The facts that I listed, and you responded to, were based on what the essay says. When it says everything we know about Jesus is hearsay, it then goes on to discuss the wild claims made about him.

However, for discussion sake, I'll change the wording to accommodate you:

With the exception of whether he existed or not, everything we know about Jesus is hearsay.

There. Let's see you spin it now.

I really don't care about his existence, I shouldn't have brought up the article as it seems to have only generated confusion. I agreed with the first "fact" you listed and only that one. The part about his existence was just something semi-related that I found interesting. I would personally say that Jesus' very existence does indeed classify as hearsay while we're on the topic.

I was going to read the essay, but simply saw no point. If the logic you demonstrated surrounding your "facts" was reflected in the essay then it serves no purpose for me. As stated it is a straw man argument, it's thus a false argument. It doesn't debunk Christianity, only the author's (false) notions of Christianity. The rest of your "facts" are not qualified to be called facts at all. All your reasoning and conclusions surrounding this argument are false as it stems from a false premise.

This is really all quite simple logic. You have basically failed to demonstrate that Christianity has been debunked. Your situation calls for too defined a set of parameters to be applied realistically. It was, however, a somewhat honest attempt. That can be appreciated I would think.