What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[pocaracas]

And Christianity fulfills every one of your requirements? Awesome!

Uh, thanks?

you're welcome.

How do you explain the religions that existed before Christianity?

I am sure there are probably a variety of explanations possible, depending on the religion in question, but it is no more challenging than explaining religions that exist contemporaneously with Christianity.

you're sure?
As in, "you don't know, but they must be similar to currently existing religions"?

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?

Good question—and, again, it is not unlike today with people believing such things. Why do they? Good question. And there are any number of answers but at the end of the day they all reduce to rebellion against God and his authority.

Oh, rebellion against god and his authority?
But, back then, they weren't aware of your christian god. How could they rebel against something they were not aware may even be there? Or do you have some intel that supports that they were aware of it?

In light of these "slight" objections of your religion ...

Oh, is that what those were? An atheist, doing theology, fabricates on the fly what "some sort of god" must do or had to do, and that was supposed to constitute some kind of objection to my religion?

Well then, please define your god for me, so I don't have to fabricate anything.

Self-attesting? What does that mean, to you?

It means it does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other.

So, just to make it clear, you claim christianity "does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other", right?
Or does this only apply to your version of christianity? and what version would that be?

... and any event that defies a naturalistic interpretation by you is automatically attributed to this divine entity.

That just demonstrates your phenomenal level of ignorance about biblical Christianity.

yes, I am an ignorant of the bible.... I'm also an ignorant of the kuran, the Torah, the Vedas, the mesopotamic scrolls, etc, etc, etc... Are you equally fluent in all of the existing holy texts?

Logically coherent? All-powerful deity that can't pass a damn message straight to all of man-kind?

Can't? See the argumentum e silentio fallacy.

Are you implying that god passed his message to all of man-kind....but they failed to interpret and record it properly, except wherever your god is from?

Consistent with itself? That it is... as are all fairy tales.

I appreciate your concession that my worldview is self-consistent. As for whether or not all fairy tales are, I will have to defer to your expertise; I am not familiar with all the world's fairy tales. Moreover, I have no idea what relevance fairy tales have to this discussion—or perhaps you were compounding your fallacies (and that is self-consistent for most atheists here).

Ah, my fallacy of exaggeration... I distinctly remember wanting to write "all good fairy tales"... bah, it would mean the same.
And yes, I am committing the fallacy of putting your bible on the same pedestal as 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.

So you have failed to see any. What relevance does that have? You do grasp and understand logical relevance, right? (Perhaps not, given the ease and consistency with which you commit one fallacy after another.)

You're the one who claims that your religion is "Consistent with the world in which we live". I merely wish you to answer the question of "How so?"...

Convincing you of some belief of mine is neither relevant nor necessary.

But you fail to answer my question providing some convenient cop-out.

You assert something and then say it's irrelevant and unnecessary to expose your "logical reasoning" behind that assertion.
Why?


On the other hand, you claim that christianity is "necessarily true". What is the "logical reasoning" that got you to this conclusion? (If you already typed it somewhere else, just point to there)

[YahwehIsTheWay]

On the day I spit in Allah's eye, and tell Him he's done a crap job. Because everyone before mohammad is doomed to islam hell and everyone not born into whichever version is the current correct one is also going to islam hell. then I will believe that I might have been wrong about Christianity.

Testify, brother Drich! What a silly god Allah is. Now our Lord Jesus saved everyone who believed from 33 CE to when Muhammad lived. Of course, everyone before Jesus is fucked but hey, we're several hundred years better, right! Advantage: Jesus.

And don't get me started on how everyone is supposed to just believe in Muhammad's status as a prophet just on faith or how we're supposed to accept the Koran as the Word of God with no evidence. Bah!

[mr.atheist]

On the day I spit in Allah's eye, and tell Him he's done a crap job. Because everyone before mohammad is doomed to islam hell and everyone not born into whichever version is the current correct one is also going to islam hell. then I will believe that I might have been wrong about Christianity.

Testify, brother Drich! What a silly god Allah is. Now our Lord Jesus saved everyone who believed from 33 CE to when Muhammad lived. Of course, everyone before Jesus is fucked but hey, we're several hundred years better, right! Advantage: Jesus.

And don't get me started on how everyone is supposed to just believe in Muhammad's status as a prophet just on faith or how we're supposed to accept the Koran as the Word of God with no evidence. Bah!

Very hypocritical,considering the fact your religion is based on faith in exactly the same way.
But of course this kind of hypocrisy is common amongst the religious.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Very hypocritical,considering the fact your religion is based on faith in exactly the same way.
But of course this kind of hypocrisy is common amongst the religious.

Pssst.
Did you notice my religion? "True Christian" with a ™?
Did you notice my title, "America's 3rd Best Christian" (after Betty Bowers and Pastor Deacon Fred, of course)?
The "Rapture Alert System" icon as my avatar?
The link to the Landover Baptist website in my signature?
...and the disclaimer that I'm a Poe, complete with a winking smiley?

From RationalWiki

Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

You, you unsaved sinner, you've just been Poe-ned!

GLORY!

PRAISE THE SWEET NAME OF JESUS!

ANOTHER ATHEIST HAS BEEN TAKEN IN BY THE POWER OF MY FAITH! THIS CALLS FOR MORE ABUSE OF THE ALL CAPS AND A TON OF NEEDLESS EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!

...and you're absolutely right in everything you've just posted.

[Ryft]

The Christian God and all the supernatural beings of the Christian religion are purported to exist by the ancient writers in the Bible. The Bible claims these things exist but that is only a claim. The existence of the Christian God and all his pals (and also the existence of the afterlife, sin, salvation, and heaven and hell) has yet to be supported by argumentation and/or evidence.

It seems inconsistent with what I know of reality. What I know of reality only comprises of animals, planets, galaxies, space, time, etc. In other words, nature. These are things I know exist. I can experience and verify it. Some things I can't experience but I can at least reasonably assume they exist based on theory.

When somebody says the angels of the Christian religion exist, that claim on the face of it seems very inconsistent with reality. I have never experienced such beings nor am I offered proof or at least some reasons why I should believe such beings exist.

So in essence, what I am saying is that the claims of the Bible seem very inconsistent with what I know about reality from everyday experience.

(Don't you dare misconstrue the above paragraphs' use of the pronoun "I" to mean that I'm talking about my own ignorance specifically. The above is applies to everyone.)

So let me paraphrase this: "Your worldview happens to make a lot of claims that are just inconsistent with and fail to meet the criteria of my worldview. And when I say 'my' worldview I mean everyone's because, according to me, everyone shares the same views I do and draws the same conclusions using the same criteria."

Look, do you know what a worldview is, Tegh? You are making claims about reality and knowledge—what is real and what isn't and whether we know it and how—as if they're made apart from a worldview, which is preposterous because that is at bottom what a worldview is, practically by definition: one's view of the world in which we live. However basic or sophisticated it might be, it is a worldview that informs your claims about reality and knowledge. And the same thing applies to me (and everyone else, of course, but this is our conversation). So what we have is my worldview versus your worldview, with you objecting that my worldview and its claims don't comport with yours and its criteria. And what I find truly bewildering is why this isn't already plainly obvious.

If it were as obvious as it should be, then perhaps you would more easily recognize the question-begging nature of your responses to me. That fallacy is why I don't presuppose the truth of my worldview when critically evaluating another, why I call such a move foolish, and why I am at a loss to understand why you so blissfully do it. Are not logic and reason esteemed and valued by you? Or only when convenient? (These sort of issues serve as an example to highlight the lack of self-consistency in worldviews—at least with those who profess to esteem logic and reason. If you do not esteem such things, then you are being consistent—at least there but inconsistent in another way; namely, if you do not esteem logic and reason, then the inconsistency arises from you objecting to contradictions and inconsistencies.)

Of course our worldviews do not comport with one another and obviously they do not meet each other's criteria. Why on earth would you expect them to? And you do, by demanding that my worldview and its claims comport with yours and its criteria. You need to recognize the fundamental antithesis here; and if you esteem logic and reason you need to recognize the fallacious nature of begging the question; otherwise I should thank you for supplying proof to my claim if you esteem such things only when it's convenient, or if you don't esteem them but nevertheless object to contradictions and inconsistencies.

No, you're again twisting my words to avoid the question. The question wasn't about knowledge. It was asking you for some proof of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion.

I did not twist your words, Tegh. And I am not avoiding any questions, although I am ignoring some. Did I misunderstand you? Perhaps. But do not impose that kind of malicious intent on me ("twisting my words") when you have no reason to, and even good reason not to (i.e., my track record). You asked very clearly and simply, "How do you know these things exist?" What I know and how I know it, whatever "it" happens to be in any particular case, is an epistemological issue. And given that you are asking for "some proof" of such "supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion," I detected the scent of a justified-true-belief epistemological model. I could tell you how I know God exists but that is NOT going to constitute proof of such a supernatural being for you. Why? Antithetical worldviews, Tegh: the claims of my worldview will not meet the criteria of your worldview, even at the most basic level of metaphysics ("true").

The existence of beings like God and angels is consistent with reality. That is the claim. And it immediately raises metaphysical issues: What is reality? What does it include? Or exclude? When is something real? Or existent? Or true? Can something be real but not true? Or exist but not be real? Such issues are the purview of metaphysics and occupy the basic levels of a worldview. If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim? But if you do, then does that definition and set of criteria come from my worldview or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then why are you begging the very question (namely, the nature of reality and what is consistent with it)?

If you are content to simply assume the truth of your worldview, even when evaluating another, which is fallacious, then so be it. But stop expecting the claims of my worldview to comport with the criteria of yours. Spoiler alert: They won't.

I don't? You can legitimately make claims about what I do and do not know? Is that a two-way street?

If you know these things exist, then please present your proof and/or arguments for these things and specifically the beings and things of the Christian religion.

You did not answer the question asked. Interesting, and noted.

I'm not sure what fallacy you're talking about. I don't see one. I was only asking for a logical argument in the absence of empirical evidence.

The question-begging fallacy, assuming what the nature of reality is when the question regards what is consistent with reality.

--------------------------------------------------

An aside for you to think about; no answer or response necessary:

You seem to approach reality in an experiential kind of way. If your senses can perceive it, then it is real. (But this leaves unanswered some very crucial questions.) And I concede for the sake of argument that you have not experienced a supernatural being, such as God or an angel. But if you are defining what is real by your sensory apparatus, and if your senses can be deceived, and if you hold to something like a justified-true-belief epistemology, then how can any belief of yours be considered true, much less justified? That is, how can you claim to know anything? And if you can't, and insist that no one else can either, then you are being inconsistent every time you ask someone how they know X or prove Y. Moreover, is not everybody's beliefs fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes (the biochemical activity of one's brain following physical laws of nature)? If so, then nobody's beliefs are rationally inferred, including yours. And if they are not rationally inferred, then what meaningful difference is there between your claims and someone else's?

---

---

So what exactly is the difference between biblical and non-biblical Christianity?

Biblical Christianity is defined by and accountable to the divine authority of the Holy Bible, such that "all religious controversies are to be settled by Scripture, and by Scripture alone. All decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men collectively or individually, are similarly to be accepted or rejected according to the verdict of the Scripture given to us by the Holy Spirit. In that verdict faith finds its final rest." [1] Also see for example the 1996 Cambridge Declaration which affirms the five solas, one of which is sola scriptura. [2] So any Christianity which has another authority equal or superior to the Bible is something other than biblical Christianity (for it has a different final authority).

----------
[1] A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English (Carey Publications, 1975), http://www.founders.org/library/bcf/bcf-1.html

[2] Cambridge Declaration (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996), http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,...64,00.html

---

---

You're sure? As in, you don't know but they must be similar to currently existing religions?

Huh? How the hell did you get THAT out of what I said? Did you even read it?

Oh, rebellion against God and his authority? But back then they weren't aware of your Christian God.

They weren't? Empirical evidence, please.

(I am appealing to what I presume you recognize as authoritative. If empirical evidence is not authoritative on your view, then forgive my presumption.)

Or do you have some intel that supports that they were aware of it?

Or perhaps you were taking a fallacious route, which is possible to infer from this (e.g., "It is true that they were not aware of your Christian God, unless you can prove otherwise"). [1]

Well then, please define your god for me, so I don't have to fabricate anything.

So you are admittedly ignorant about the God of biblical Christianity? Please do explain how objections to X can be intelligible when raised by someone ignorant about X. Or at least tell me, please, that you can see the ironic parallel here with young-earth creationists whose objections against biological evolution are embarrassing as a result of their ignorance about it.

So just to make it clear, you claim Christianity "does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other," right? Or does this only apply to your version of Christianity?

First, I don't have a version of Christianity. I am not creative enough to invent one. Second, it applies only to biblical Christianity.

Yes, I am ignorant of the Bible. I'm also ignorant of the Quran, Torah, Vedas, the [Mesopotamian] scrolls, etc. ... Are you equally fluent in all of the existing holy texts?

Your honesty is refreshing. And no, I am not equally fluent in the Vedas, for example. But then I also don't make boneheaded claims about the beliefs of those whose texts I am ignorant about—unlike you, who said to me that "any event that defies a naturalistic interpretation by you is automatically attributed to this divine entity," a statement so erroneous that it uniquely demonstrated the degree of your ignorance.

Are you implying that God passed his message to all of mankind but they failed to interpret and record it properly, except wherever your God is from?

Huh? How the hell did you infer THAT implication?

You committed the argumentum e silentio fallacy and I was pointing that out, in the hopes that you would see the mistake and attempt to reframe the question but logically this time. You implied that God is not a logically coherent concept because this "all-powerful deity ... can't pass a damn message straight to all of mankind." This commits the aforementioned fallacy, for it is invalid to conclude that he can't from the fact that he hasn't.

Please derp less. A lot less.

Ah, my fallacy of exaggeration.

That was not the fallacy you committed, which was actually the appeal to ridicule. This fallacy is committed when one "presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration." [2]

And, again with refreshing honesty, you admit this: "And yes, I am committing the fallacy of putting your Bible on the same pedestal as fairy tales." I value the honesty, and appreciate the proof you are supplying to my claims about the incoherence and inconsistency of views other than biblical Christianity. As I said previously, "You do grasp and understand logical relevance, right? (Perhaps not, given the ease and consistency with which you commit one fallacy after another.)"

You're the one who claims that your religion is "consistent with the world in which we live." I merely wish you to answer the question of "How so?"

Yes, I sort of gathered that much already. Doesn't really make that any more relevant, though. Sorry.

(See my response to Tegh about the untenable nature of insisting that my worldview and its claims comport with yours and its criteria.)

But you fail to answer my question, providing some convenient cop-out.

If I fail to answer some question, it is usually because I have failed to recognize it as a question or understand what it was asking, in which case you simply need to reword it. Otherwise I do not fail to answer questions; I might answer them in a way that you find unsatisfying or I might ignore them (and sometimes with an explanation of why, such as it being logically irrelevant to the question at hand, regardless of its interest to you).

You assert something and then say it's irrelevant and unnecessary to expose your "logical reasoning" behind that assertion. Why?

Uh, because it's irrelevant or unnecessary? The answer was kind of right there.

On the other hand, you claim that Christianity is "necessarily true." What is the "logical reasoning" that got you to this conclusion? (If you already typed it somewhere else, just point to there.)

Do a search for the involved and in-depth discussion between myself and the founder, Adrian, on the subject of TAG (transcendental argument for God). It was over three years ago but still here somewhere. It contains more than enough information and detail.

----------
[1] See the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, claiming something is true unless and until proven false.

[2] Wikipedia, s.v. "Appeal to ridicule," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...=522476613

[Zen Badger]

Testify, brother Drich! What a silly god Allah is. Now our Lord Jesus saved everyone who believed from 33 CE to when Muhammad lived. Of course, everyone before Jesus is fucked but hey, we're several hundred years better, right! Advantage: Jesus.

And don't get me started on how everyone is supposed to just believe in Muhammad's status as a prophet just on faith or how we're supposed to accept the Koran as the Word of God with no evidence. Bah!

Very hypocritical,considering the fact your religion is based on faith in exactly the same way.
But of course this kind of hypocrisy is common amongst the religious.

You just got poe-ed bigtime

[The Magic Pudding]

What one thing?
Well there are a number of things that are fundamental to my faith.
The virgin birth, if only I'd been born of a virgin, I know I would have made more of my life. Alas I as an ignorant babe I accepted the breast of a tainted woman, if only I'd realised she'd been sullied by a penis, I would have demanded formula, or a goat to suck on.

He was a carpenter, was he an OK carpenter or did he give up the trade 'cause he was crap at it? I could never follow a failed carpenter, unless he was turning my water into wine I suppose.

He spent some time fishing, did he toss the undersized ones back?

He rode a donkey, if he kicked it I wouldn't like him.

If he didn't have tight abbs but was in fact fat, I'd probably go with Buddha, he seems a cheerier chap anyway.

[pocaracas]

---

The Christian God and all the supernatural beings of the Christian religion are purported to exist by the ancient writers in the Bible. The Bible claims these things exist but that is only a claim. The existence of the Christian God and all his pals (and also the existence of the afterlife, sin, salvation, and heaven and hell) has yet to be supported by argumentation and/or evidence.

It seems inconsistent with what I know of reality. What I know of reality only comprises of animals, planets, galaxies, space, time, etc. In other words, nature. These are things I know exist. I can experience and verify it. Some things I can't experience but I can at least reasonably assume they exist based on theory.

When somebody says the angels of the Christian religion exist, that claim on the face of it seems very inconsistent with reality. I have never experienced such beings nor am I offered proof or at least some reasons why I should believe such beings exist.

So in essence, what I am saying is that the claims of the Bible seem very inconsistent with what I know about reality from everyday experience.

(Don't you dare misconstrue the above paragraphs' use of the pronoun "I" to mean that I'm talking about my own ignorance specifically. The above is applies to everyone.)

So let me paraphrase this: "Your worldview happens to make a lot of claims that are just inconsistent with and fail to meet the criteria of my worldview. And when I say 'my' worldview I mean everyone's because, according to me, everyone shares the same views I do and draws the same conclusions using the same criteria."

Look, do you know what a worldview is, Tegh? You are making claims about reality and knowledge—what is real and what isn't and whether we know it and how—as if they're made apart from a worldview, which is preposterous because that is at bottom what a worldview is, practically by definition: one's view of the world in which we live. However basic or sophisticated it might be, it is a worldview that informs your claims about reality and knowledge. And the same thing applies to me (and everyone else, of course, but this is our conversation). So what we have is my worldview versus your worldview, with you objecting that my worldview and its claims don't comport with yours and its criteria. And what I find truly bewildering is why this isn't already plainly obvious.

If it were as obvious as it should be, then perhaps you would more easily recognize the question-begging nature of your responses to me. That fallacy is why I don't presuppose the truth of my worldview when critically evaluating another, why I call such a move foolish, and why I am at a loss to understand why you so blissfully do it. Are not logic and reason esteemed and valued by you? Or only when convenient? (These sort of issues serve as an example to highlight the lack of self-consistency in worldviews—at least with those who profess to esteem logic and reason. If you do not esteem such things, then you are being consistent—at least there but inconsistent in another way; namely, if you do not esteem logic and reason, then the inconsistency arises from you objecting to contradictions and inconsistencies.)

Of course our worldviews do not comport with one another and obviously they do not meet each other's criteria. Why on earth would you expect them to? And you do, by demanding that my worldview and its claims comport with yours and its criteria. You need to recognize the fundamental antithesis here; and if you esteem logic and reason you need to recognize the fallacious nature of begging the question; otherwise I should thank you for supplying proof to my claim if you esteem such things only when it's convenient, or if you don't esteem them but nevertheless object to contradictions and inconsistencies.

No, you're again twisting my words to avoid the question. The question wasn't about knowledge. It was asking you for some proof of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion.

I did not twist your words, Tegh. And I am not avoiding any questions, although I am ignoring some. Did I misunderstand you? Perhaps. But do not impose that kind of malicious intent on me ("twisting my words") when you have no reason to, and even good reason not to (i.e., my track record). You asked very clearly and simply, "How do you know these things exist?" What I know and how I know it, whatever "it" happens to be in any particular case, is an epistemological issue. And given that you are asking for "some proof" of such "supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion," I detected the scent of a justified-true-belief epistemological model. I could tell you how I know God exists but that is NOT going to constitute proof of such a supernatural being for you. Why? Antithetical worldviews, Tegh: the claims of my worldview will not meet the criteria of your worldview, even at the most basic level of metaphysics ("true").

The existence of beings like God and angels is consistent with reality. That is the claim. And it immediately raises metaphysical issues: What is reality? What does it include? Or exclude? When is something real? Or existent? Or true? Can something be real but not true? Or exist but not be real? Such issues are the purview of metaphysics and occupy the basic levels of a worldview. If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim? But if you do, then does that definition and set of criteria come from my worldview or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then why are you begging the very question (namely, the nature of reality and what is consistent with it)?

If you are content to simply assume the truth of your worldview, even when evaluating another, which is fallacious, then so be it. But stop expecting the claims of my worldview to comport with the criteria of yours. Spoiler alert: They won't.

If you know these things exist, then please present your proof and/or arguments for these things and specifically the beings and things of the Christian religion.

You did not answer the question asked. Interesting, and noted.

I'm not sure what fallacy you're talking about. I don't see one. I was only asking for a logical argument in the absence of empirical evidence.

The question-begging fallacy, assuming what the nature of reality is when the question regards what is consistent with reality.

--------------------------------------------------

An aside for you to think about; no answer or response necessary:

You seem to approach reality in an experiential kind of way. If your senses can perceive it, then it is real. (But this leaves unanswered some very crucial questions.) And I concede for the sake of argument that you have not experienced a supernatural being, such as God or an angel. But if you are defining what is real by your sensory apparatus, and if your senses can be deceived, and if you hold to something like a justified-true-belief epistemology, then how can any belief of yours be considered true, much less justified? That is, how can you claim to know anything? And if you can't, and insist that no one else can either, then you are being inconsistent every time you ask someone how they know X or prove Y. Moreover, is not everybody's beliefs fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes (the biochemical activity of one's brain following physical laws of nature)? If so, then nobody's beliefs are rationally inferred, including yours. And if they are not rationally inferred, then what meaningful difference is there between your claims and someone else's?

---

---

So what exactly is the difference between biblical and non-biblical Christianity?

Biblical Christianity is defined by and accountable to the divine authority of the Holy Bible, such that "all religious controversies are to be settled by Scripture, and by Scripture alone. All decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men collectively or individually, are similarly to be accepted or rejected according to the verdict of the Scripture given to us by the Holy Spirit. In that verdict faith finds its final rest." [1] Also see for example the 1996 Cambridge Declaration which affirms the five solas, one of which is sola scriptura. [2] So any Christianity which has another authority equal or superior to the Bible is something other than biblical Christianity (for it has a different final authority).

----------
[1] A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English (Carey Publications, 1975), http://www.founders.org/library/bcf/bcf-1.html

[2] Cambridge Declaration (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996), http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,...64,00.html

---

---

---

You're sure? As in, you don't know but they must be similar to currently existing religions?

Huh? How the hell did you get THAT out of what I said? Did you even read it?

Of course I read it. It's in plain english. You were using the "I'm sure" expression in a typical meaning of "I think it's like this, but don't know for sure".
Here, let me quote what you wrote and see that it matches what I understood:

I am sure there are probably[...]

Oh, rebellion against God and his authority? But back then they weren't aware of your Christian God.

They weren't? Empirical evidence, please.

(I am appealing to what I presume you recognize as authoritative. If empirical evidence is not authoritative on your view, then forgive my presumption.)

Or do you have some intel that supports that they were aware of it?

Or perhaps you were taking a fallacious route, which is possible to infer from this (e.g., "It is true that they were not aware of your Christian God, unless you can prove otherwise"). [1]

Are you wanting to entertain the idea that, before christ, people would already be aware of the christian god?
And, perhaps, that they would already be aware of "biblical christianity"?

Well then, please define your god for me, so I don't have to fabricate anything.

So you are admittedly ignorant about the God of biblical Christianity? Please do explain how objections to X can be intelligible when raised by someone ignorant about X. Or at least tell me, please, that you can see the ironic parallel here with young-earth creationists whose objections against biological evolution are embarrassing as a result of their ignorance about it.

Do you want me to say straw man? Damn, said it...

I am not a complete ignorant of the concept of god, claimed by christians. But you seemed to state that the small quality I attributed to that god (which stems from my knowledge of the claims) was fallacious... hence, my information about said god must be wrong/lacking... or yours (but given that you are the one who's a christian, I'd wager that you are more in tune with the concept of god than I am). Hence, I asked you to provide me with that concept so I can continue a discussion with you based on the same concept. As long as I have a different concept from yours, I can't be expected to have a decent conversation.

Yes, I am ignorant of the Bible. I'm also ignorant of the Quran, Torah, Vedas, the [Mesopotamian] scrolls, etc. ... Are you equally fluent in all of the existing holy texts?

Your honesty is refreshing. And no, I am not equally fluent in the Vedas, for example. But then I also don't make boneheaded claims about the beliefs of those whose texts I am ignorant about

Like the claim that only your biblical christianity "holds itself as not only true but necessarily true."
What does that say about the others that you ignore?

Are you implying that God passed his message to all of mankind but they failed to interpret and record it properly, except wherever your God is from?

Huh? How the hell did you infer THAT implication?

You committed the argumentum e silentio fallacy and I was pointing that out, in the hopes that you would see the mistake and attempt to reframe the question but logically this time. You implied that God is not a logically coherent concept because this "all-powerful deity ... can't pass a damn message straight to all of mankind." This commits the aforementioned fallacy, for it is invalid to conclude that he can't from the fact that he hasn't.

Hasn't he?
Maybe he did, but people in different places of the world merely misinterpreted? That could account for the existence of religions almost everywhere in the world, but with local divergences.
Sorry if I was a step ahead in my previous reply...

The only fact here is that there are many different religions in the world and some of them have been around since before christianity, if we are to believe the records.

Again, if we are to believe the records, well before the hebrew god was believed, there were already other religions. Were these misinterpretations of the hebrew god's message? Is the hebrew god a misinterpretation of some other god?
Or are they all product of a common simple factual source, such as the power of human imagination?

Please derp less. A lot less.

I can't.... it's a second nature!

And, again with refreshing honesty, you admit this: "And yes, I am committing the fallacy of putting your Bible on the same pedestal as fairy tales." I value the honesty, and appreciate the proof you are supplying to my claims about the incoherence and inconsistency of views other than biblical Christianity.

errr... thanks?

As I said previously, "You do grasp and understand logical relevance, right? (Perhaps not, given the ease and consistency with which you commit one fallacy after another.)"

Perhaps not, indeed.... I'm aiming to have one more fallacy with each reply.
I guess this one counts as the "appeal to ridicule", no?

You're the one who claims that your religion is "consistent with the world in which we live." I merely wish you to answer the question of "How so?"

Yes, I sort of gathered that much already. Doesn't really make that any more relevant, though. Sorry.

(See my response to Tegh about the untenable nature of insisting that my worldview and its claims comport with yours and its criteria.)

yeah, I read your reply to Tegh...
Typical believer stuff: "I believe because I believe and you, unbeliever, can't tackle this belief with your science, because it's in a "position" where science can't touch it".
Did my summary go too wide?

You assert something and then say it's irrelevant and unnecessary to expose your "logical reasoning" behind that assertion. Why?

Uh, because it's irrelevant or unnecessary? The answer was kind of right there.

The question was "why do you consider those things irrelevant and unnecessary?", in case you missed it -.-'

On the other hand, you claim that Christianity is "necessarily true." What is the "logical reasoning" that got you to this conclusion? (If you already typed it somewhere else, just point to there.)

Do a search for the involved and in-depth discussion between myself and the founder, Tiberius, on the subject of TAG (transcendental argument for God). It was over three years ago but still here somewhere. It contains more than enough information and detail.

Oh yeah, like I'm going to find some thread from 3 years ago?
You put too much faith in my googling abilities.... they're good, but not that good.

... 15 minutes later: is this it?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-1540-po...l#pid30243

[mr.atheist]

Very hypocritical,considering the fact your religion is based on faith in exactly the same way.
But of course this kind of hypocrisy is common amongst the religious.

Pssst.
Did you notice my religion? "True Christian" with a ™?
Did you notice my title, "America's 3rd Best Christian" (after Betty Bowers and Pastor Deacon Fred, of course)?
The "Rapture Alert System" icon as my avatar?
The link to the Landover Baptist website in my signature?
...and the disclaimer that I'm a Poe, complete with a winking smiley?

From RationalWiki

Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

You, you unsaved sinner, you've just been Poe-ned!

GLORY!

PRAISE THE SWEET NAME OF JESUS!

ANOTHER ATHEIST HAS BEEN TAKEN IN BY THE POWER OF MY FAITH! THIS CALLS FOR MORE ABUSE OF THE ALL CAPS AND A TON OF NEEDLESS EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!

...and you're absolutely right in everything you've just posted.

I did I was just playing along

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The Christian God and all the supernatural beings of the Christian religion are purported to exist by the ancient writers in the Bible. The Bible claims these things exist but that is only a claim. The existence of the Christian God and all his pals (and also the existence of the afterlife, sin, salvation, and heaven and hell) has yet to be supported by argumentation and/or evidence.

It seems inconsistent with what I know of reality. What I know of reality only comprises of animals, planets, galaxies, space, time, etc. In other words, nature. These are things I know exist. I can experience and verify it. Some things I can't experience but I can at least reasonably assume they exist based on theory.

When somebody says the angels of the Christian religion exist, that claim on the face of it seems very inconsistent with reality. I have never experienced such beings nor am I offered proof or at least some reasons why I should believe such beings exist.

So in essence, what I am saying is that the claims of the Bible seem very inconsistent with what I know about reality from everyday experience.

(Don't you dare misconstrue the above paragraphs' use of the pronoun "I" to mean that I'm talking about my own ignorance specifically. The above is applies to everyone.)

So let me paraphrase this: "Your worldview happens to make a lot of claims that are just inconsistent with and fail to meet the criteria of my worldview. And when I say 'my' worldview I mean everyone's because, according to me, everyone shares the same views I do and draws the same conclusions using the same criteria."

I think we do share some of the same basic views about reality, it's just that religious people like yourself appear to be acting inconsistent with those views that you hold. Let's say I have a barn, and I bring you close to the barn and point to it and say "on the inside of it there's an interstellar spaceship." Unless you're completely gullible, you wouldn't believe me unless you had some sort of empirical proof. You know interstellar crafts have only existed in theory and college student like myself certainly couldn't afford one even if they did exist. You know from experience then that the chances I'm telling the truth about there being a spaceship in my barn are incredibly small. I would have to open the barn and show it to and also fly it around a bit to prove to you that I really had one. Or let's say for some reason I can't open the barn door and show it to you, I could at least bring you financial records, the blueprints, the testimony of the scientists and engineers, the pictures and videos of it, and you could analyze those things for yourself and see if it's reasonable to conclude that I have a spaceship in my barn.

The above shows how any properly educated adult in modern western civilization would respond (unless they're mentally handicapped). I'm assuming it's similar to the process you yourself would follow too.

But when it comes to existence of angels and demons, and heaven and hell, you appear to not apply the same critical evaluation even though it's in the same category as claiming there's a spaceship in my barn (claiming something incredible and extraordinary exists). What's the difference between claiming a spaceship is in my barn and claiming heaven exists? Assuming you haven't done the sort of evaluation for yourself of these things that I'm requesting (maybe you have but it doesn't look like it), why the inconsistency?

Look, do you know what a worldview is, Tegh? You are making claims about reality and knowledge—what is real and what isn't and whether we know it and how—as if they're made apart from a worldview, which is preposterous because that is at bottom what a worldview is, practically by definition: one's view of the world in which we live. However basic or sophisticated it might be, it is a worldview that informs your claims about reality and knowledge. And the same thing applies to me (and everyone else, of course, but this is our conversation). So what we have is my worldview versus your worldview, with you objecting that my worldview and its claims don't comport with yours and its criteria. And what I find truly bewildering is why this isn't already plainly obvious.

So your worldview assumes the existence of heaven and angels but it doesn't assume the existence of the spaceship in my barn? Why is it you can critically evaluate the existence of the spaceship in my barn but not angels?

If it were as obvious as it should be, then perhaps you would more easily recognize the question-begging nature of your responses to me. That fallacy is why I don't presuppose the truth of my worldview when critically evaluating another, why I call such a move foolish, and why I am at a loss to understand why you so blissfully do it.

I'm not evaluating my worldview against your own. I'm merely asking you to be consistent in the way you evaluate your worldview. I expect you to be a full blown skeptic when it comes to spaceships in barns but with angels and heaven and hell, you seem to give those things a special pass.

Are not logic and reason esteemed and valued by you? Or only when convenient? (These sort of issues serve as an example to highlight the lack of self-consistency in worldviews—at least with those who profess to esteem logic and reason. If you do not esteem such things, then you are being consistent—at least there but inconsistent in another way; namely, if you do not esteem logic and reason, then the inconsistency arises from you objecting to contradictions and inconsistencies.)

I esteem logic and reason but I've only been studying it for at most a total of a year.

I did not twist your words, Tegh. And I am not avoiding any questions, although I am ignoring some. Did I misunderstand you? Perhaps. But do not impose that kind of malicious intent on me ("twisting my words") when you have no reason to, and even good reason not to (i.e., my track record). You asked very clearly and simply, "How do you know these things exist?" What I know and how I know it, whatever "it" happens to be in any particular case, is an epistemological issue. And given that you are asking for "some proof" of such "supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion," I detected the scent of a justified-true-belief epistemological model. I could tell you how I know God exists but that is NOT going to constitute proof of such a supernatural being for you. Why? Antithetical worldviews, Tegh: the claims of my worldview will not meet the criteria of your worldview, even at the most basic level of metaphysics ("true").

Then tell me, what constitutes proof to you of the existence of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion?

The existence of beings like God and angels is consistent with reality. That is the claim. And it immediately raises metaphysical issues: What is reality? What does it include? Or exclude? When is something real? Or existent? Or true? Can something be real but not true? Or exist but not be real? Such issues are the purview of metaphysics and occupy the basic levels of a worldview. If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim? But if you do, then does that definition and set of criteria come from my worldview or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then why are you begging the very question (namely, the nature of reality and what is consistent with it)?

I don't see why we need to get into those issues. All I'm asking is a reason for the apparent inconsistency in the way you evaluate extraordinary claims.

An aside for you to think about; no answer or response necessary:

You seem to approach reality in an experiential kind of way. If your senses can perceive it, then it is real. (But this leaves unanswered some very crucial questions.) And I concede for the sake of argument that you have not experienced a supernatural being, such as God or an angel. But if you are defining what is real by your sensory apparatus, and if your senses can be deceived, and if you hold to something like a justified-true-belief epistemology, then how can any belief of yours be considered true, much less justified? That is, how can you claim to know anything? And if you can't, and insist that no one else can either, then you are being inconsistent every time you ask someone how they know X or prove Y. Moreover, is not everybody's beliefs fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes (the biochemical activity of one's brain following physical laws of nature)? If so, then nobody's beliefs are rationally inferred, including yours. And if they are not rationally inferred, then what meaningful difference is there between your claims and someone else's?

Noted.