Debunking Christianity? It's actually quite as simple as asking "why?"

[Epimethean]

Teapots and gods, spinning away in the ether ...

[The Grand Nudger]

You know the thing that kills me is that christian apologists actually keep insisting that we don't have any data re where their god came from. That we don't see his precursors, where certain myths came from. I'm so exhausted by this that I don't even care to explain it to them anymore. I figure if they want to know, they'll look it up for themselves. It's their god after all, not mine.

RE "prove that" Such unbelievable nonsense. You state in absolutely certain terms that there is no amount of evidence that would disprove god. Evidence is powerless to disprove him, and yet strangely somehow can be leveraged to prove his existence?

"No amount of evidence can disprove god TO ME", would be the better way to phrase this. The last two words being the most important part of the statement.

[Epimethean]

You can lead a monotheist to Joseph Campbell, but you can't make him read.

[Godscreated]

God did not give man the ability to be violent, that is the direct result of the original sin. I do not question the existance of God as I stated in the above, I do question how the Bible might be translated or the way some scriptures are taught but not the existance of God and I do not question wither the Bible is God's word. I have at times questioned my salvation, I have always come to terms with that. To question is only human. Questioning can be a form of doubt or it can be an avenue to find the truth without doubting.

I guess everytime I see a variation in this thread of "God didn't create evil, Man did," I will have to keep responding with God's own word in the Bible that you're not reading, until you can answer it or concede. Also your non-sequiteur: You don't question the Bible is God's word but you question both how it is translated and how it is taught.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV) - (So if the LORD creates evil, what are Satan's and Hell's purpose?)
(I have highlighted the relevant segment in colour too, I figured out how. A color command duh.)

If God did not have the capacity to create evil himself, he could not have created that capacity in us. And everything I read in Genesis (both mutually-exclusive creation stories) indicates Satan had nothing to do with creating anything in mankind. Perhaps, unlike Microsoft, which ofttimes views itself as a deity, God failed to issue Human Service Pack 1.

It was a snake that tempted Eve in the garden. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that snake is Satan. Eve could not have been tempted if God had not created the capacity of temptation and wrongdoing within both her and Adam. Your interpretation about evil is not supported by your own book. If you are going to base your religious faith on a book, you should want to know what's in the whole book, I would think.

I've read it, many times. And I fully understand the ancient modern English of the KJV, and the shifting of definitions of words and phrases. Do you?

Even if you are given the pass that the Bible counts as evidence, then it's the whole Bible, or none of it. And either it's the Word of God, or it's not. If it's the Word of God, you either believe it, or you do not. (Sorry, agnostics, knowing is not a requirement of believing. An agnostic can be either a theist, or a nontheist, but cannot sit on the fence between those two positions: there isn't a position of "I believe a little bit," or "I mostly don't believe" or "The Bible is correct about theology in some places but not in others."

And you still haven't answered my question on why you are an atheist on all religions, including mine, except your own. Why do you believe your version of Christianity over all others, over Hinduism, or Sikhism, or Jainism, or Wicca, or Shinto, or Discordia, or Bhuddism, or animism, or Islam, or Judaism, or Norse mythology, or Greek mythology, or Roman mythology, or. . . .

What makes yours more special than the others (evidence, not testimony)? And why aren't you demanding women keep their place and be silent about matters of faith, or giving away all your worldly things and going forth to preach, as commanded in the New Testament? Did God buy your computer?

Recap: Sorry. Atheists and folk like me already know where evil comes from. Don't need a God of Evil for that either. That's a Christian thing.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)

James. And if you harm none, do what you will. (The Wiccan Rede is a much better moral compass than the Golden Rule.)

If you have been reading my post you know that I use the New American Standard translation, the reason for this is the fact that it's the most accurate translation of all the different versions. The King James being the first translation into english is not as accurate simply for the reason during the time of the translation the translators did not know the meaning of all the old greek and hebrew and because most of the translation came from latin those translators did not know any more than the King James translators. So from a more accurate source this is the translation of Isaiah 45:7.
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well being (or peace) and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
Calamity as defined in Webster: 1) great distress or misfortune 2) an event causing great harm or loss and affliction :disaster
So the verse does not say that God created evil, it does say that He can and will bring great distress upon the nation of Israel, to understand why I say Israel you need to read the whole chapter. Again why want you use a modern translation that is more accurate than the King James, would you use a 15th century medical book to treat a person with? I hope not.
God did not create evil, that is against His nature and if you understood what scripture says you would know this. You are correct in saying Lucifer did not create evil in man, he is only an angel, so he has no powers to create anything. Lucifer does posess powers and he used them through a serpant with legs not a snake (again you should read carefully) to tempt Eve. God gave man freewill and with that comes the ability to reject God's law, so Eve and Adam both fail. The Bible does not say that the serpant became a snake, it says that God cursed the serpant and it would crawl on it's belly from then on. Once again I state there is only one creation story, as you stated one must completely believe or completely reject the Word of God and I've chosen to believe and in so doing see no reason why God would give two different accounts of creation, since He is the creator and was there when creation took place.
I believe only in the God of the Bible because I've seen the results of His work in my life and the lives of many others, I want go into detail because you will say I've given a testimony, actually if you look up the meaning of that word you will find it means evidence. Also I do not know about all the religions in the world, I do know that the God of christianity promises me an eternal life with Him that is full of wonder and treasure, what that treasure is I can not say, I do trust that it is good because the God who saved me is good. There is my reason whether you like it or not. Why should I reject women who serve the LORD, they have been given that right by God so who am I to question that. God never commanded that I give away my worldly things and there is no command to go and preach, the command is to go forth and make disciples and I have done such and hope to be able to do more. Now instead of telling me I do not know what's in the Bible, why don't you study it instead of just reading it and you might learn a thing or two and who knows you could even see .... well you know, I can not elaborate that would be preaching and that's against the rules.

---

Let's say you were an all-powerful deity--not necessarily the Christian God--and you had an interest in creating one of Plato's Forms: say apricotness. You couldn't really do such a thing without creating the ante-form, the lack of apricotness, could you?

This puts a limitation on God: he is not omnipotent as he cannot create one thing without it's anteform. Christian theology insists God is omnipotent, so in theory God could create "good" without creating "evil." However, Isaiah clearly states he creates evil, so the point is moot.

---

[Minimalist]

You can lead a monotheist to Joseph Campbell, but you can't make him read.

Or think.

[Epimethean]

But my, how they can spew out a wordwall!

[The Grand Nudger]

Argumentum verbosium.

[Faith No More]

---

Prove He doesn't exist, and I would be exerting myself as much as you. Well, maybe not quite. But I'll first make sure we're talking about the right God. Prove he doesn't exist given He is omnipotent and yet reserved enough to not wrench our free will about, omnipresent Spirit and yet once manifested in flesh, and everything righteous. There is no length of cosmic exploration sufficient to reveal that He is not there, since he can be everywhere; there is no turn of fate that can make it impossible for him to exist (but the problem of pain is a tricky one to handle, as a Christian). Basically, the easy way for Christians to demonstrate that God exists is to ask if good exists, and whether evil occurences can lead back to good, and since most people believe they do, then God must exist, because for Christians all good things come from God (wherever you think good things come from, there is God; when an atheist finds this source, what does he call it?). Next, since God is order and comfort, one may ask whether this world holds any comfort for us in knowing that our meager lives fulfill a higher purpose. Here is where we may part ways: I have faith that a higher purpose exists to make this transient world where we encounter chaos, arbitrary and unfair laws, and disappointment all part of a more orderly existence. You may not think so. You may have been moved deeply during the course of your life to be cynical of and dissatisfied with this supposed higher order, and this is why Christians really aren't troubled to prove everything: instead they have faith. I have faith in higher order of awe-inspiring purpose that our insignificant (by cosmological standards) lives fulfill; I have faith in there being a source of righteousness. Whether or not it's proved doesn't bother me, because we are talking about concepts now aren't we? Order and love? If I'm the sole person with these concepts, but elsewhere people insist they don't have them, they still exist. That I have faith in the Christian God proves His existence.

---

Do you realize that your proof of God involves characteristics you have given to God? I can do it too.

The FSM is the source of all light.
Light exists.
Therefore, the FSM exists.

For your proof to work, you would have to prove that God has the characteristics you claim he does. To do that, you'd have to prove God exists. See the problem?

[Boris Spacek]

Our resident fundies will denounce you for suggesting that their "omnipotent" god can't do something. If he can't create apricotness without also creating the lack of apricotness then he is not omnipotent. And they hate it when you say that their boy can't do whatever he wants.

Well, if you really think they would, I'm afraid that means they're at least a little dim. I was not saying that something prevents God from creating the nonexistence of whatever He creates, I was saying that realizing something's existence without further realizing the lack of it is not something God would be narrow minded enough to do. It's meaningless to ask God to create some obvious contradiction, like a square circle. So, why bring it up? Even if He could do such a thing, there would be no way of using it in our world. So if we're to use any logic here, we'll have to stop bothering God to perform mindless tasks.

First mistake. But welcome anyway.

It's not a mistake. It's part of the argument. The Young Atheist already presumed God existed and then brought up a contradiction over God's supposedly infinite goodness and his simultaneous involvement in the origin of pain. If I don't presume God exists, I'm not answering him and I'm not engaging him on the terms he set out. It would have been an irrelevant point, if I had made one.

[Faith No More]

Well, if you really think they would, I'm afraid that means they're at least a little dim. I was not saying that something prevents God from creating the nonexistence of whatever He creates, I was saying that realizing something's existence without further realizing the lack of it is not something God would be narrow minded enough to do. It's meaningless to ask God to create some obvious contradiction, like a square circle. So, why bring it up? Even if He could do such a thing, there would be no way of using it in our world. So if we're to use any logic here, we'll have to stop bothering God to perform mindless tasks.

I agree the squared circle is a flawed argument, but these things are not brought up to have God perform meaningless tasks. They are brought up to see if God's qualities that are ascribed to him, such as omnipotence and omniscience, are contradictory in nature.