What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Ryft]

Sorry about the delay. I was rather preoccupied over the holidays.

Where I come from, "without" refers simply to not having something whereas "within" means sometimes originates from inside and invokes spatial imagery. I've never heard the term "without" used in the context of something getting something from outside itself. It's always meant simply not having something. You're using the word to describe something having something that originated from another source. Is this some difference between normal American english and Canadian? I guess I'm "aboot" to find out.

I just looked it up in my American Oxford dictionary. It says the way you use "without" is an "archaic" usage. Shall we then also start using 'f' for small 's's and saying "ye", and "whither" and "'tis"? That sounds like a gay time.

It astounds me that you felt it worthwhile to actually type all that. Ah well. It is at least revealing.

Maybe those things exists. I don't know.

Indeed.

I just can't understand why you would believe such things exists. Is it simply because you want to believe in them? Explain why you believe the Christian God exists and ... [snip rest]

So you cannot understand why I believe thus and so. That is fine. But since that is also entirely irrelevant I am going to ignore it.

(Maybe others have been willing to wander down these rabbit trails, but I am not. Let us stick to the logically relevant.)

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Yes, I am quite sure that was it.

---

---

No, it isn't. It contains many factual errors and internal contradictions that make it inconsistent with reality.

So you assert; but that is compelling only to the already convinced.

Yes, it was. Something is considered to be true if it is consistent with its premises and/or consistent with reality. One of your requirements was "consistent with itself and the world we live in", i.e. true.

That follows only on a correspondence theory of truth, which I do not hold—and the statement was mine. If the statement was yours, then it could be said that "true" was one of the criteria. Please attempt to remove your metaphysical blinders every now and then.

First of all, thanks for proving me right. By making a statement like "Christianity is the only worldview that is true necessarily", you've shown that you do presuppose the truth of your own worldview and measure that of others by it. Your previous statement regarding existence of god, angels, demons etc. further proves it.

I do not presuppose the truth of my worldview when evaluating another; that is question-begging foolishness, a fact which escapes the notice of far too many here. But obviously I presuppose the truth of my worldview when expressing and defending it. Not to put too fine a point on it but, "Duh." And this worldview holds itself as not only true but necessarily true. That is why the "existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" would disprove Christianity entirely for me, for such a thing should be impossible.

... self-contradictions, factual and logical errors in the Bible ...

Ipse dixit ... [yawn]

Your fellow atheists who already agree with this are of course nodding in agreement. But just how satisfying can an echo chamber really be for you?

Maybe that's all you need: to be convincing for the already convinced. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

And finally, there are many other philosophies and worldviews which do qualify the criteria of being "self-attesting, logically coherent and consistent with itself and the world we live in" - naturalism being the first to come to mind. The only reason you don't accept it is because of your pressuposition of truth of your worldview.

Wrong. I reject it because it is self-defeating (i.e., quite apart from my own worldview).

---

---

I'm wondering why a worldview that is self-attesting needs an apologetic. Or a priestly class.

That's probably because you misunderstand what self-attesting means here.

[pocaracas]

But obviously I presuppose the truth of my worldview when expressing and defending it. Not to put too fine a point on it but, "Duh." And this worldview holds itself as not only true but necessarily true.

Oh really?
necessarily true? why?

That is why the "existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" would disprove Christianity entirely for me, for such a thing should be impossible.

What's wrong with all other religions?
islam?
hindus?
classical greek?
ancient egyptian?
norse?

How are these (and any other that may come to your mind) not "self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live"?

[Ryft]

Oh really? Necessarily true? Why?

By definition. Its truth is not determined by or dependent upon anything outside itself, nor is it possible to be false (i.e., necessarily true).

What's wrong with all other religions?

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.

[mr.atheist]

What's wrong with all other religions?
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[Ryft]

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.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

So you cannot understand why I believe thus and so. That is fine. But since that is also entirely irrelevant I am going to ignore it.

(Maybe others have been willing to wander down these rabbit trails, but I am not. Let us stick to the logically relevant.)

It's not irrelevant. You said the bible is consistent with reality. I gave examples where it isn't consistent with reality as we know it.

[Ryft]

It's not irrelevant.

Tegh, I could spend fifteen hundred words explaining clearly why I believe the Christian God exists; at the end of that explanation, how much time would we have spent discussing what it would take to disprove Christianity to me? Zero. Your inability to understand why I believe some thing or other is entirely irrelevant to the question of what it would take to disprove Christianity to me.

You said the Bible is consistent with reality. I gave examples where it isn't consistent with reality as we know it.

No, you did not. You said you don't know whether God or his "superfriends" exist, and that you cannot understand why I think they do. The only way such beings are examples of the Bible being inconsistent with reality is if you DO know they don't exist. Is that the case? You know they don't exist? (You know where I am going next, right? Be careful.)

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

You said the Bible is consistent with reality. I gave examples where it isn't consistent with reality as we know it.

No, you did not. You said you don't know whether God or his "superfriends" exist, and that you cannot understand why I think they do. The only way such beings are examples of the Bible being inconsistent with reality is if you DO know they don't exist. Is that the case? You know they don't exist? (You know where I am going next, right? Be careful.)

Better put...It seems inconsistent with reality.

And likewise, how do you know these things exist? 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? How can you say it's consistent when it that worldview contains so many unknowns? 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.

[pocaracas]

Oh really? Necessarily true? Why?

By definition. Its truth is not determined by or dependent upon anything outside itself, nor is it possible to be false (i.e., necessarily true).

It's like saying that the truth of the rings of power is consistent with the LotR world. They exist, they are not dependent on anything external to that world and they can't be false..... i.e. necessarily, the rings of power exist.


Just because some tale is self-contained and self-consistent it doesn't mean that that tale represents reality in a trustworthy way (aka, true).

Maybe I'm just missing your point entirely and require you to make it a bit more verbose.

What's wrong with all other religions?

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 christianity fulfills every one of your requirements? Awesome!
How do you explain the religions that existed before 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?
I mean, if there is some sort of god, that god must have passed some knowledge onto those people so they could worship it, but did so in a way that disabled them from attaining a "self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" religion....
This god had to generate a human being that would set things straight... why? Why couldn't it get things right the first time around? (this was the third time, if you count the flood)
To me, it all sounds a lot like man-made myth and very little like all-powerful divine intervention.

In light of these "slight" objections of your religion, how can you call it "self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live"?
- Self-attesting? What does that mean, to you? To me it sounds like, if you believe, you are convinced it represent reality and any event that defies a naturalistic interpretation by you is automatically attributed to this divine entity. wishful thinking? god of the gaps? stuff like that....
- Logically coherent? all-powerful deity that can't pass a damn message straight to all of man-kind?
- Consistent with itself? That it is... as are all fairy tales.
- 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. Please provide it.

[KichigaiNeko]

Maybe something like this...

Guardian angels useless against a solid punch, finds new study



A study of people who think they have a guardian angel has found the benevolent winged God-minions to be completely ineffective against a well-timed right-cross.

After one-third of morons who visited a Bible Society website said they believed they were protected by a guardian angel, an unofficial study has gone on to test the level of protection offered.

Unofficial survey organiser, Shane McManus told us, “I myself offer ‘protection services’ you see, so I’m keen to know just what I’m up against.”

“It’s a simple process, I ask if you think you’ve got a guardian angel, and if you say yes I punch you in the face, and make a note if something ethereal stops me.”

“No, so far I have a 100% punch success rate.”

Guardian Angels

Critics of the unofficial survey have said McManus is not giving the guardian angels long enough to react to the potential threat, an argument countered McManus.

“Yeah, I thought about that. The guy who runs the launderette answered yes, so I made a mental note to come back and burn down his shop that night.”

“I went home and drew up plans of what I was going to do, and them went to the store to buy accelerant, giving the guardian angel plenty of time to see me, and to do something about it.”

“Turns out launderettes burn really quickly. Who knew?”

A Bible Society spokesperson said the extra survey proved nothing, as the guardian angel only leaps into action if someone is in mortal danger, before adding, “No, I’d rather you didn’t test that hypothesis either, if it’s all the same.”