Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

Hi spock,

If the Abrahamic God existed, how should he demonstrate his existence?

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the definitions of the attributes of the Abrahamic God are confused, contradictory and in some cases, impossible... assuming that he exists as defined (sic) by the bible, he could do something testable, something that leaves tangible, physical evidence which cannot be explained by anything other than his action. According to the bible, he used to do this all the time.

Thanks BD. What about the test of his existence spelled out through Moses?

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18)

---

Yes, but if the newcomer is asking, rather than telling, would the same be true? If I ask you why someone believes there is no God, is it up to me to answer my own question?

I guess that's a good point, which reflects reality better.

Thanks.

I guess from the word 'go' I would start wondering how many different versions of god I need to disprove before 'GOD' is disproved altogether. We can talk about why omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience don't work together but then you can just bring up the next variation to that ad infinitum. This world is concerned with the things that exist and not non-existent things. So I would think that it's logical for you to show me why god is a possibility as opposed to me showing the endless list of possible gods to be non-existent.

I just wrote a thread about this actually: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14314.html

Well, I suppose it would save me a lot of time if I could determine that it is impossible for any being to be perfectly and completely powerful, and at the same time perfectly and completely loving, and at the same time perfectly and completely wise. That feat would fell a full house of God concepts! Please explain how you know these three attributes to be incompatible. Or would you like to talk with me about it in the other discussion thread?

If Jesus' disciple Matthew penned his gospel after Mark, why is this evidence he did not write the gospel?

Because that gives rise to the possibility that he used Mark as the basis for his work, which it seems like he did. The Synoptics are best understood with a Markan priority type approach. That helps to explain why Mark is so short compared to the other two, why it misses out on important things like a birth narrative and witness accounts of a resurrected Christ, and why Matthew + Luke are more incredible sounding (because Mark toning down the miracles wouldn't really make much sense.. at least to me).

Not sure I understand. Seems to me that all this suggests is that Matthew might have plagiarized Mark. It does not appear to demonstrate Matthew never not wrote the gospel bearing his name. Am I missing something, or have I correctly state the point you are trying to make?

From what I understand, John was the youngest disciple who outlived the others. He spent his last days exiled on an island and had many visitors and even his own disciples. If I were a Christian at the time who visited John in exile, I'd ask him to tell me something Jesus said, or did that I did not already know from the previous gospels. It makes sense to me that John, near the end of his life, would write a gospel with people like these in mind.

Being younger than others that lived through the same events as you does not equate to gathering better sounding evidence for something. I'm not too sure what logic that is....

John and Matthew supposedly saw the same things but somehow John came out with a Gospel that exceeds the Synoptics in lots of ways. Age has nothing to do with this.

Never said John's evidence was more substantial; just tried to make the point that John's information is additional. He added details of Jesus' life the others left out of their gospels. We see the same today, don't we? Some journalist writes a biography of some president. It sells a lot of copies, and the public becomes interested. A former member of the president's administration writes another biography, with details not found in the previous one. People buy that one, too--not because the new biography rehashes the same old details of the man's life, but because the new biography has additional information not presented in the previous biography. See what I mean?

---

You were a devout Pentecostal who read the King James Version of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but you could not understand it.

I wasn't aware ANYONE understood that obscurist drivel. I have of course run across lot of arrogant pricks who claim THEY do.

It's kind of like reading, or listening to Shakespeare. After awhile the meaning of the words start to make sense to you. I prefer more modern translations, as they require less of a mental workout to interpret.

Being brought up Catholic,we were slightly embarrassed by the Book Of Revelations, and couldn't really understand how it found its way into the canon. We pretty much ignored it,considering it be be within the purview of mystics and the crackpot fringe of Christendom.EG Evangelicals,JW's, Adventists,etc. Of course Mormons were beyond the pale.

One needs to understand what the Pope and other Catholics actually mean when they use the term 'ecuminical': The hope that all other Christian churches will finally realise they are in error and recognise the Catholic church as the one true church.

Yes, that sounds like what Catholics tell me. They say Protestants are Christians, too, who only have part of the truth about the true church.

---

Not sure I understand. Why is it necessary that God predetermines every choice you, or I will make (if such a God were to exist, I mean). Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Please clarify.

No, you got it. Here's why I think that this would have to be the case in a world with a God whose attributes included omnipotence and the power to create:
If this creator has the power to make any world he wants, then it follows that he necessarily takes free will from the equation. Reason being, if it is the case that he can make any world, he chose a world where events played out a certain way. If he chose a world where events played out a certain way, then all the events of that world are subject to his will. If all events are subject to his will, then nothing that occurs in that world is against his will (unless he is too stupid to make a world where everything matched his will) and all choices you could possibly make are null. Choices are nullified because the your will is really the will of that God, having chose the universe where you would make the decisions you are making and not different decisions. To rephrase, you aren't the arbiter of your own choice, the omniscient God chose the world where you would choose as you do. True free will isn't subject to a God's choice of a world.

---

If you want the reason most people on this site became atheists, try looking to prove God.
If you find something that you think proves a God exists, bring it to me to deconstruct and obliterate. The chances I haven't heard that argument are a million to one.

Sounds much like Reformed Theology to me. Calvin would be proud!



The difficulty I have with the Reformed view is this:

1. It does not fit with certain passages of the Bible that contradict it. Seems to me a Christian should adopt a position that is consistent with the books they profess to be divine in origin.

2. The goal of God according to most Christian views is to promote love among people for each other and for him. It seems to me love is impossible without freedom of will.

I would not expect you to defend (1), so let's consider (2). Please explain how a person could freely love God without the freedom to choose to not love him.

---

Thank you everyone for replying. It will take some time to respond to every one, but I hope to do so soon. What I'm hearing are three main reasons for me to quit Christianity, which are ( in order of popular vote):

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior

You forgot to mention my reason... To bring about the "New Covenent"

"Christianity" has been used and abused by those in power to control the masses for centuries.

Hell is used to scare the populace into conformity.
Tithing is used to bilk the populace out of their money.
"Brotherhood" has been used to exclude people of different faiths and customs.

I would love to see the wealthiest organization in the world use their money to end world hunger, wouldn't you?

I would say that your answer falls under one (or perhaps all three) of these categories. Wouldn't you?

---

Hey all:

I think I've responded to everyone. Please let me know if I missed one of your posts. When you have the time, I'd like to know what you think of my responses.

---

I should amend my previous statement. The answers given so far fall under four main categories:

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior
4. The Bible is not a reliable, historical document