Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:32 am

Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
#21
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
Possibly, but personally I wouldn't give him the benefit of any doubt. This isn't the first, nor sadly the last, time he's done this sort of thing to derail a discussion. That he finds it funny, or at least wants us to think he does, merely reinforces that.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#22
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
(December 2, 2012 at 11:16 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:




That's all, I'm not continuing the discussion with anyone who offers stupid replies. You give me a serious reply and I will respond, as usual.
Reply
#23
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
(December 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm)Daniel Wrote:
(December 2, 2012 at 11:16 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:




That's all, I'm not continuing the discussion with anyone who offers stupid replies. You give me a serious reply and I will respond, as usual.

Well, firstly, how does Jesus being resurrected prove Christianity? It's a non sequitur.

Perhaps it was aliens? Perhaps it was just a trickster god having fun? Perhaps Jesus was a devil? etc.
My ignore list




"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Reply
#24
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
Devils don't have the power to rise people from the dead.
Reply
#25
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
(December 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm)Daniel Wrote: Devils don't have the power to rise people from the dead.

You're begging the question. You're assuming "devil" as defined specifically by Christian theology which means you're assuming Christianity in your attempt to defend the resurrection, the resurrection being what proves Christianity.
My ignore list




"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Reply
#26
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
(December 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm)Daniel Wrote: Devils don't have the power to rise people from the dead.

Says who? Other than the fact that devils are no more real than any other part of the fantasy, obviously.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#27
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?



Plenty of people in history have been crucified, that doesn't prove much. That he is risen, that's another kettle of fish.


For my part, I'm of the opinion that given our nature, and our cognitive biases as ordinary human beings, anybody sufficiently deep within the gravity well of any particular massive star is going to find it difficult to reverse course and achieve escape velocity. A single event isn't going to do it, nor should it. Our belief systems would be horribly ineffective if a single contrary fact upset them like apple carts. (This is perhaps the dirty underbelly of epistemological holism.) Conservatism is only a vice if it consistently results in error. And things like perseverance of belief and cognitive dissonance mechanisms will insure that one lone fact won't be enough to fundamentally upset any reasonable person's apple cart.

Perhaps this is a reflection of an older epistemology, that in which authorities and credibility were the most reliable ways to locate truth and wisdom. In an age before science and modern epistemology what other rule would you use as your guide? "Great men have great ideas. Wise men know truth." What else would you base your search for truth upon? Knowing what we now know about human psychology, we recognize that these aren't robust and reliable principles. Yet they still influence many. A story often told, Francis Galton was something of an elitist, and he despised the common man with their common opinions. One day, he decided to conduct an experiment. He went to a county fair, and brought a large pig, for which he set up a contest to see who could guess the correct weight of the pig. The result was that, as expected, individual guesses ranged widely to and fro. However, the average of all the guesses taken together converged on the true weight of the pig.

In a like way, the truth of general questions is better settled by social groups, not individuals. Social groups, with cultural and social norms, have a much more robust and reliable process for moving toward greater truth than an individual does. Intelligence in individuals is the primary determinant of the reliability of the individual's opinions, but even this is sabotaged regularly by the inherent processes of cognitive bias and ignorance (not unintelligence). Moving from a very smart persons beliefs, one to the next, it's impossible to predict whether that next belief in the smart person isn't just completely biased bullshit. This happens in groups, too, but the group process and averaging smooths out these unpredictabilities. So in my overall epistemological view, truth is the property of social groups, not individuals.

So, in some sense, I think the question itself is an artifact of an unreliable epistemic - that the vicissitudes of beliefs of individuals, in the specific, is worth focusing on.

Beyond that, it also seems rather hypocritical. Any scientist who abandoned a hypothesis over one fact or the merest blush of trouble would be a bad scientist. This question seems to imply that such behavior would be reasonable to expect in a theist, that they could change their worldview over one experience, when we would not consider this laudable in secular individuals, and such cheaply won allegiances would likely rather be viewed as a sign of a character flaw.

I'm reminded of listening to the ranting and raving of people who have tried the psychedelic drug DMT. The voluminous and vapid metaphysical twaddle pouring from the mouths of such people should serve as adequate caution against placing too much weight on the subjective impact of a personal experience. I have chronic mental illness. If I believed every stray firing of bad neurons in my brain, then I'd be a basket case. Perseverance of belief is not necessarily an error, it is a stabilizing mechanism, and one that, without it, our species would not likely prosper. But I understand, people discover falsifiability and think that's a gold standard to build the world upon, and thus it's implied that someone who can't point to a falsifying observation is being unreasonable (despite that this view itself is an instance of the liar's paradox, and a similar trap to that which deals a death blow to logical positivism). I see every bit as much dogmatism and unthinking allegiance to ideology among the non-religious as the religious (not implying that the truths are equivalent, just that it's inconsistent and hypocritical to fault that in the methods of the religious that you do not fault in yourself when you behave similarly).

And I sense that I've toggled over into rambling, so I'll just end this without summary point. For what it's worth.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#28
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
(December 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm)Daniel Wrote: With that said, my answer is this. If you could prove to me that Jesus was not crucified, or if you could provide sufficient evidence to prove that his body is not risen, then that would prove I am wrong.

In other words:

[Image: christian-logic.jpg]

Rule one of logic: you can't prove a negative. I mean, can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist?
I live on facebook. Come see me there. http://www.facebook.com/tara.rizzatto

"If you cling to something as the absolute truth and you are caught in it, when the truth comes in person to knock on your door you will refuse to let it in." ~ Siddhartha Gautama
Reply
#29
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
Quote:With that said, my answer is this. If you could prove to me that Jesus was not crucified, or if you could provide sufficient evidence to prove that his body is not risen, then that would prove I am wrong

Since a resurrection is an extraordinary claim (it goes against the laws of physics) and we don't have evidence for it expect from the hearsay from the gospels (which doesn't count that much), then rationally speaking you shouldn't believe in Christianity, since there is no prove that his body has risen.
Reply
#30
RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
(December 2, 2012 at 9:30 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: You're begging the question. You're assuming "devil" as defined specifically by Christian theology which means you're assuming Christianity in your attempt to defend the resurrection, the resurrection being what proves Christianity.
I can't prove a negative, can I? I can't prove that devils can't rise the dead, thus the onus is on you to provide some evidence that they can.

(December 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm)apophenia Wrote: Plenty of people in history have been crucified, that doesn't prove much. That he is risen, that's another kettle of fish.
That's right, on its own it's not special. On its own, it doesn't mean anything besides "he was executed". If you found proof that Jesus died some other way, then I would count that as enough evidence to disprove Christianity entirely. Go find the evidence.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What value do you see in studying theology in concerns to Christianity? EgoDeath 40 3792 September 8, 2019 at 4:32 pm
Last Post: EgoDeath
  So, are the Boils of Egypt still a 'thing' ?? vorlon13 26 5545 May 8, 2018 at 1:29 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Catholicism would actually be the most likely controlled Christianity Rolandson 10 1917 January 1, 2017 at 11:44 am
Last Post: Redoubtable
  Christians, would you have saved Jesus, if you had he chance? Simon Moon 294 33908 July 2, 2016 at 11:23 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  You Can't Disprove a Miracle Rhondazvous 155 16032 March 18, 2016 at 11:05 am
Last Post: Cyberman
  The number one reason not to follow Christianity Aegon 43 8866 March 11, 2016 at 10:56 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! Annoyingbutnicetheist 30 6747 January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  So is crucifiction a bad or a good thing? Longhorn 75 21988 December 17, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion! WishfulThinking 265 59565 October 11, 2015 at 9:20 am
Last Post: Cyberman
  cannibalism and you (christianity) dyresand 58 16076 August 30, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Last Post: Ravenshire



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)