Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Captain Colostomy]

Since definitions are being bandied about, how about one for delusional? I imagine we atheists can all chuckle evilly at how perfectly every Christian on the planet fits that word. Better than 'atheism' and 'ideology' for sure.

Bah.

[fr0d0]

fr0d0 - Well, that's fine to explain how you've arrived at your beliefs. But my questioning is intended more for you to identify the weak links in those beliefs. So what reasoning that you rely upon might be shown to be faulty that might make you consider the non-theistic route? What are the assumptions you rest upon, where if challenged, might make you uncomfortable to be a Christian?

That's a massive subject and I have no idea right now on anything specific. Not that there shouldn't be one or many. It's not like we're not exploring this with a fine tooth comb every day on here.

I don't rest on assumptions. I believe through faith (information, assent and trust). Assumptions are based upon non verifiable answers, such as: is God, or is he not the creator of everything. Belief is a commitment to one side, having being convinced it is correct.

The major weak link in my beliefs is me. I am as susceptible to error as the next person. I might justify negativity to be more desirable. That destructive route leads away from God.

Let me speak about my de conversion. I grew to hate some Christians, mainly for their hypocrisy. I moved church. My wife stayed. I got tired of the pressure to attend. I got tired of too much input. I'm the kind of person that likes to work things out for themselves. I found that I wasn't getting enough space for that. I remember this being at the forefront of my mind when I made the decision not to believe. It was a very long time before I believed again, perhaps 10 years. During which time I moved from an active hatred of theists.

Does that help? I get the feeling that this is going to be one of those conversations where you will never be satisfied with the answer.

[Locke]

Okay, so now that I'm all caught up on this thread, the totality of the cases offered where a theist might acknowledge they are wrong can be summed up as follows:

God gives s number of promises in the Bible with certain conditions. If one single time any of these promises were not true when I fulfilled the criteria I would accept God does not exist, because He cannot lie if He does exist.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Okay, so now that I'm all caught up on this thread, the totality of the cases offered where a theist might acknowledge they are wrong can be summed up as follows:

God gives s number of promises in the Bible with certain conditions. If one single time any of these promises were not true when I fulfilled the criteria I would accept God does not exist, because He cannot lie if He does exist.

Intriguing. A few examples please?

[Bad Writer]

And how do you tell that he even made a promise? How do you verify they he kept it?

[Golbez]

Interesting indeed. I hope omnipotence wasn't one of his promises, if he can't lie. But yes, I would like to know what are a few examples of these promises.

In any event, I wouldn't find that as striking evidence since the old testament was written before Jesus was born, and the new testament was written a couple centuries after his death, by several people, with numerous contradictions. So a bit more generally, if you're looking for discrepancies or factual inaccuracies in the Bible as a source for concern, those are readily available. Here for instance:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

Or historically with the flood, ark, or age of the earth.

[Captain Colostomy]

God promised no more global floods. We haven't all drowned.

Lockean Christianity(with a OT nod): 1.

Deluded(not deluged!) atheists: 0.

Taste the rainbow, bitches!

[Bad Writer]

Try prophecies, Golbez. Those are always interesting to peruse.

[Locke]

Interesting indeed. I hope omnipotence wasn't one of his promises, if he can't lie. But yes, I would like to know what are a few examples of these promises.

In any event, I wouldn't find that as striking evidence since the old testament was written before Jesus was born, and the new testament was written a couple centuries after his death, by several people, with numerous contradictions. So a bit more generally, if you're looking for discrepancies or factual inaccuracies in the Bible as a source for concern, those are readily available. Here for instance:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

Or historically with the flood, ark, or age of the earth.

You wouldn't consider it striking evidence? Then I won't waste my time going through them.

But I will say this; they started recording the New Testament 15 years after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, and finished (according to history) by 69 AD at the latest - 7 years after the events in Acts were finished. Historically speaking, that is an insignificant amount of time. Because of this, the manuscripts were able to be copied for all the churches and verified by the Apostles before the end of the Apostles' lives. This is now a consensus among scholars. Your argument is decades old

[Bad Writer]

This is now a consensus among scholars.

No it isn't. If it's a consensus, then why is it still hotly debated?

So let's say that some of these scholars are correct in saying that the NT was being written 15 years after the death of Jesus. So what? How does that prove anything? What exactly are you trying to prove anyway? The only thing you should concern yourself with is giving evidence for your God, then maybe we can hear more about this Jesus fellow.