Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

Yes, I do sometimes cringe. But that's why we have discussions about these kinds of things. And I don't expect them to change their minds except in the face of solid evidence (or at least, a more-coherent argument to the contrary)... but I do expect them to change their minds, because that's what intellectually honest people do.

---

Your honesty is refreshing. I wish more members of this forum posted as thoughtfully. You're wading in a very shallow pool.

I often take a moment at CAF to correct a newbie Catholic apologist who is either overstating the Christian position - or simply has something wrong. I think you would agree that if we're going to make a case for our respective points of view, we ought to do it well, eh?

---

Atheism isn't a coherent group, so it's not really possible to "bring the credibility of atheism into question", as you suggest. If an individual atheist bases his ideas on something that's not solid, as one  of the reasons they reject religion, that's on them.

---

Agreed, but have you noticed how often the forest is mistaken for the tree(s) when it comes to Christianity in this forum? Westboro Baptist. Pat Robertson. A pedophile priest. ALL Christians...and Christ Himself for that matter...are tarred and feathered because of the actions or words of these few individuals or small groups. Just this past week or so, Christianity has been mocked because of the Rapture - an 19th century Proestant novelty. And if I take pains to point out that Catholics do not believe in the rapture, then I get cries of the "no true Scot" fallacy thrown at me.

No one here (that I can see) is arguing for Jesus Mythicism. Why does this strawman keep popping up?

Redbeard is a mythicist. So is Minimalist. And a large majority of the forum members are ambivalent or agnostic on this subject, at best. It's intellectually lazy...if Jesus never existed, then there is no reason to think more deeply. If he did, then there is much more work to be done. No one wants to do that. Like Jenny's assertion that the Shroud is a forgery. Or the idea that there is no tomb of Peter under St. Peter's in Rome. Folks read articles (well, one at least) that presupposes what they already want to believe, and that's as far as their knowledge goes.

Aractus, Ehrman, and O'Neill aren't afraid to admit that scholarship favors Christianity - at least as far as Jesus' historical existence goes.

We can't ever seriously discuss what Jesus said and did until we have first agreed that Jesus even existed. Otherwise, we invariably get to the point at which the believer's debate victory is at hand...only to have the mythicist play "Jesus never really existed anyway" as his "get out of this hot seat free" card.

I don't think Redbeard is a mythicist, but I think Min is... I'm trying to recall accurately so I don't slander (libel) him, here. But your point is taken. I agree about the laziness argument, in general, but most just don't care enough to work at it the way some of us do. 

This may strike you as dishonest, but I think you need to realize the sheer amount of work it would take for us to disprove all  of the religious claims out there. How much effort have you put into proving Krishna is not what the Hindus claim?

And I also disagree about "we can't ever seriously discuss what Jesus said and did until we have first agreed that Jesus even existed", since it's irrelevant whether he existed when discussing the CLAIMS made about this character. And just like Krishna, it doesn't matter whether he existed in history when discussing whether he was involved in something that resembles an intergalactic war against alien invaders, with combat aircraft and missiles, lasers and nukes, as the stories seem to imply, as told in the Mahabharata.