What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Zen Badger]

Because they all fail in one respect or another; some require intellectual currency from without in order to sustain coherence, some admit to being fictions and are content with that, some contain self-contradictions (and some are happy to admit and embrace those contradictions), some describe a world that does not look like the one we live in, and on and on.

And of course the bible is 100% accurate in it's portrayal of the history of the world.

[mr.atheist]

Christianity falls into the exact same category.Off course you wont admit that because you are too blinded by your own faith to see it.But its true.

Your mind reading abilities need a lot of work.

So you admit you where wrong then?
Or is that all you could come with,without admitting you where wrong?

[Ryft]

It seems inconsistent with reality.

Why? Because God and angels do not exist?

How do you know these things exist?

That gets into epistemology, which truly is a different subject altogether.

How can you say that the Bible is externally consistent with reality if it contains things such as angels, etc., that you don't know exist?

I don't? You can legitimately make claims about what I do and do not know? Is that a two-way street?

Until such things can be shown to exist or that it is reasonble to assume they exist you cannot say the Bible is consistent with reality.

Yes? According to what or whom? What worldview do I have to presuppose the truth of in order to evaluate my own? And can any criterion for reasonableness be trusted from a worldview which presents such a blatant fallacy as if it were logically legitimate?

---

---

It's like saying that ... [snip rest]

Sure—if you make a strawman caricature of it first. It is even entertaining and makes one smirk.

Unfortunately it is not rational, and thus uninteresting to me.

And Christianity fulfills every one of your requirements? Awesome!

Uh, thanks?

How do you explain the religions that existed before Christianity?

I am sure there are probably a variety of explanations possible, depending on the religion in question, but it is no more challenging than explaining religions that exist contemporaneously with Christianity.

None of them were "self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live," according to you ... so how come people believed in them?

Good question—and, again, it is not unlike today with people believing such things. Why do they? Good question. And there are any number of answers but at the end of the day they all reduce to rebellion against God and his authority.

I mean, if there is some sort of god, that god must have ...

I thought you were an atheist. Why are you doing theology? That is not exactly self-consistent.

To me, it all sounds a lot like man-made myth and very little like all-powerful divine intervention.

First, obviously it is man-made myth because you were making it up on the fly there. Second, what does it matter to reality how something sounds to you?

In light of these "slight" objections of your religion ...

Oh, is that what those were? An atheist, doing theology, fabricates on the fly what "some sort of god" must do or had to do, and that was supposed to constitute some kind of objection to my religion?

Self-attesting? What does that mean, to you?

It means it does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other.

To me it sounds like ...

What does it matter to reality how something sounds to you?

... and any event that defies a naturalistic interpretation by you is automatically attributed to this divine entity.

That just demonstrates your phenomenal level of ignorance about biblical Christianity.

Logically coherent? All-powerful deity that can't pass a damn message straight to all of man-kind?

Can't? See the argumentum e silentio fallacy.

Consistent with itself? That it is... as are all fairy tales.

I appreciate your concession that my worldview is self-consistent. As for whether or not all fairy tales are, I will have to defer to your expertise; I am not familiar with all the world's fairy tales. Moreover, I have no idea what relevance fairy tales have to this discussion—or perhaps you were compounding your fallacies (and that is self-consistent for most atheists here).

Consistent with the world in which we live? Atheists have been asking for proof of that consistency for ages. I have failed to see any.

So you have failed to see any. What relevance does that have? You do grasp and understand logical relevance, right? (Perhaps not, given the ease and consistency with which you commit one fallacy after another.)

Please provide it.

Convincing you of some belief of mine is neither relevant nor necessary.

---

---

Your mind reading abilities need a lot of work.

So you admit you where wrong then?
Or is that all you could come with,without admitting you where wrong?

Your reading comprehension is not much better.

[Minimalist]

Because they all fail in one respect or another;

Quite amusing, Ryft....but typical.

3 And why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matty 7

I don't know who wrote that shit but they sure had you pegged.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

It seems inconsistent with reality.

Why? Because God and angels do not exist?

The Christian God and all the supernatural beings of the Christian religion are purported to exist by the ancient writers in the Bible. The Bible claims these things exist but that is only a claim. The existence of the Christian God and all his pals (and also the existence of the afterlife, sin, salvation, and heaven and hell) has yet to be supported by argumentation and/or evidence.

It seems inconsistent with what I know of reality. What I know of reality only comprises of animals, planets, galaxies, space, time, etc. In other words, nature. These are things I know exist. I can experience and verify it. Some things I can't experience but I can at least reasonably assume they exist based on theory.

When somebody says the angels of the Christian religion exist, that claim on the face of it seems very inconsistent with reality. I have never experienced such beings nor am I offered proof or at least some reasons why I should believe such beings exist.

So in essence, what I am saying is that the claims of the Bible seem very inconsistent with what I know about reality from everyday experience.

(Don't you dare misconstrue the above paragraphs' use of the pronoun "I" to mean that I'm talking about my own ignorance specifically. The above is applies to everyone.)

How do you know these things exist?

That gets into epistemology, which truly is a different subject altogether.

No, you're again twisting my words to avoid the question. The question wasn't about knowledge. It was asking you for some proof of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion.

How can you say that the Bible is externally consistent with reality if it contains things such as angels, etc., that you don't know exist?

I don't? You can legitimately make claims about what I do and do not know? Is that a two-way street?

If you know these things exist, then please present your proof and/or arguments for these things and specifically the beings and things of the Christian religion.

Until such things can be shown to exist or that it is reasonble to assume they exist you cannot say the Bible is consistent with reality.

Yes? According to what or whom?

If you say the Bible is consistent with reality, but have no evidence or reasons to believe all the supernatural stuff like angels and hell, etc, you can't honestly say it's consistent with reality because it might be the case that those things do not exist. Now, I'm sure you think you have good evidence and/or reasons to believe those things exist so if you could present those things please so this conversation could go somewhere.

What worldview do I have to presuppose the truth of in order to evaluate my own?

You do not have to assume naturalism/atheism to answer these questions (I'm assuming you thought I would say that you must assume naturalism/atheism). Just something simpler than what you believe now. I never created this thread with the intention of challenging theism/deism in general. You can assume a God exists if you like. This thread only targets Christianity.

And can any criterion for reasonableness be trusted from a worldview which presents such a blatant fallacy as if it were logically legitimate?

I'm not sure what fallacy you're talking about. I don't see one. I was only asking for a logical argument in the absence of empirical evidence.

[mr.atheist]

Your reading comprehension is not much better.
[/quote]

Throwing insults around is not a good basis for an argument.

[Cato]

That just demonstrates your phenomenal level of ignorance about biblical Christianity.

So, what exactly is the difference between biblical and non-biblical Christianity?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

That just demonstrates your phenomenal level of ignorance about biblical Christianity.

So, what exactly is the difference between biblical and non-biblical Christianity?

One Christian's "biblical Christianity" is another Christian's "heresy."

[Brian37]

Because they all fail in one respect or another; some require intellectual currency from without in order to sustain coherence, some admit to being fictions and are content with that, some contain self-contradictions (and some are happy to admit and embrace those contradictions), some describe a world that does not look like the one we live in, and on and on.

And of course the bible is 100% accurate in it's portrayal of the history of the world.

It is an accurate portrayal of the history of the world. And in other news Harry Potter flying around on a broom is an accurate portrayal of lift that allows airplanes to fly. Of course us pesky atheists wouldn't know anything about the nature of reality.

[Cato]

Brian,
You said history of the world. Reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk