All the problems with Christianity

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Avoidaiah, you did not reply to my post earlier, but I get that you're trying to focus on one or two arguments at a time, so that's fine and you don't have to reply to this, this is just what I think of your response.

This is now between you and me. Throw your Bible out the window, and don't bring it up again. If you do, you have lost my attention. Deal?



Let me keep this real simple.

Can you prove that you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe?

What you're asking me to do is impossible, regardless of God's existence, Jesus's existence, the Bible's reliability, Christianity's veracity, or anything else.
You're not just asking me to prove God's existence, you're asking me to prove that I have a personal relationship with Him. In order to do this, I would have to produce some form of communication with Him, because what is a relationship without communication? But the way God communicates with people is in their hearts and minds, which cannot be detected by other people.
Even if I was to prove this personal relationship I have, I would also have to prove that this person I have a relationship with is God. How can I do that without even mentioning a source that tells who created the universe and who he has a relationship with?
But let me point out something about that challenge you gave me: You did not refute any of my arguments. You said I wanted to believe, you said I was blinded by confirmation bias, you said my arguments were unconvincing, but you did not refute even one of them. So why do you expect me to throw my Bible out the window?
Regardless, I think I'll have to bow out of this one. Sorry.

So you are saying you have no proof of god besides the bible which makes it circular logic. The bible is real because god says so and god is real because the bible says so. But you believe without evidence, as you have quite clearly admitted. So now you see why atheists don't think there's a god, because there isn't one.

One of the things that doesn't prove god, but does add to the evidence that there may be a god (right now I think there is no such evidence) is some sort of demonstration of knowledge, for example, it would be quite astounding if you could on this forums post my name, the one my parents gave me when I was born. It's a Chinese name, I've extended this challenge to another guy on here who claimed to be god (seriously he did) and he couldn't do it. So if you do talk to god, and tell him that by giving you this piece of information you could very likely save my soul. Let me know what god says.

To talk about Biblical prophecy as some uniquely special, indisputable and factual thing is to pretend that people are so stupid that they can't look back at apparent prophecies and try to make them fit with any number of events, or that they cannot construct very vague, general claims of the future. Nostradamus anyone? Psychics? Come on now. We already some of the Gospels do this. I forget which one exactly (I think it's Matthew), but one of the Gospels does this to extraordinary lengths that's it's absurd and poorly done.

Yes, of course many weak prophecies are held up with crutches like these. But it is a fallacy (hasty generalization, to be specific) to say that all prophecies must be like this just because some are.
Take a look at the prophecies in the middle of Page 12. Many of them said exactly what event would happen, leaving no room for interpretation (e.g. mentioning Cyrus as the conqueror of Babylon).

Can you prove that the prophecy was written before the events happened? And can you prove that it was god who made the prophecy and the writer did not just overhear from some advisor or whatever? You do realize that for the bible to be written by god it needs to be 100% correct, one mistake the entire thing goes down the drain. And even if it is 100% correct it still doesn't prove god. So it's not just 1 prophecy, all of them needs to come true. And as I said before, genesis pretty much discredits the entire bible.

[Bad Writer]

The point is that if you can't show how this god of yours even exists then you can't prove that you have a personal relationship with him. Saying you have such a relationship and trying to prove it are both exercises in futility. If I told you that I received multiple personal visitations from Thor, then I would sound just as crazy as any Xtian who claims to speak with Yahweh. Yes...you sound crazy, even if you are clinically sane.

[Zazzy]

After presenting me with a strawman and being called on it, I see Avodaiah has decided to drop me. Well, that's a good strategy when you have argued shittily.

[MindForgedManacle]

---

To talk about Biblical prophecy as some uniquely special, indisputable and factual thing is to pretend that people are so stupid that they can't look back at apparent prophecies and try to make them fit with any number of events, or that they cannot construct very vague, general claims of the future. Nostradamus anyone? Psychics? Come on now. We already some of the Gospels do this. I forget which one exactly (I think it's Matthew), but one of the Gospels does this to extraordinary lengths that's it's absurd and poorly done.

---

Yes, of course many weak prophecies are held up with crutches like these. But it is a fallacy (hasty generalization, to be specific) to say that all prophecies must be like this just because some are.

And where did I make that hasty generalization in that post? Go on, I'll wait while you fail to find it.

Take a look at the prophecies in the middle of Page 12. Many of them said exactly what event would happen, leaving no room for interpretation (e.g. mentioning Cyrus as the conqueror of Babylon).

And this is where a little critical thinking goes a long way. Given that even on a Christian worldview most prophecies will have an exponentially higher chance of being a later interpolation or wrong than for them to be true. And thus it is straightforward Bayesian inferencing that allows me to conclude that it is more likely than not that the supposed prophecy is fraudulent.

[Tonus]

After presenting me with a strawman and being called on it, I see Avodaiah has decided to drop me. Well, that's a good strategy when you have argued shittily.

"Shittily" is not a word. I think you meant "shit-tastically." (I know, I know... the hyphen is optional.)

[Minimalist]

I think I'll petition Merriam-Webster's to make shittily a word.

[Avodaiah]

After presenting me with a strawman and being called on it, I see Avodaiah has decided to drop me. Well, that's a good strategy when you have argued shittily.

Sorry for not getting back to you Zazzy, as PBB has pointed out I'm trying to focus on only a couple arguments at a time.
Incidentally, I took another look at our conversation and I don't think I've put up a straw man.

I just can't see any reason to even care what it says other than on a literary level (obviously reading it is important to be well-educated in Western literature). The stories in it are so absurd that I have never even seen why so many people find them so important and ennobling.

You said the absurdness of some of the stories in the Bible was one of your problems with Christianity, i.e. an argument against it. So you were trying to prove something.
Unless of course you were saying it might me true but it seems unlikely and doesn't make sense to you, in which case I apologize for my misunderstanding.

So you are saying you have no proof of god besides the bible which makes it circular logic. The bible is real because god says so and god is real because the bible says so.

I know about God because of what the Bible says, but the evidence for the Bible is not because God said so. There are plenty of evidences for the Bible other than the Bible itself, even more than I already mentioned.

Can you prove that the prophecy was written before the events happened? And can you prove that it was god who made the prophecy and the writer did not just overhear from some advisor or whatever?

There is every reason to believe this prophecy is a genuine one. While it is true that Isaiah was divided into three parts, and another prophet likely wrote this prophecy, the qualifications for even being a prophet lend a lot of credibility. Here is one of them:

when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Like you said, prophecy has to be 100% correct, and the ancient Jewish people knew this, yet there is not a single claim, as far as I can find, that these prophecies were anything other than genuine, from ancient times up to the present.

And where did I make that hasty generalization in that post? Go on, I'll wait while you fail to find it.

I found it:

To talk about Biblical prophecy as some uniquely special, indisputable and factual thing is to pretend that people are so stupid that they can't look back at apparent prophecies and try to make them fit with any number of events, or that they cannot construct very vague, general claims of the future. Nostradamus anyone? Psychics? Come on now. We already some of the Gospels do this. I forget which one exactly (I think it's Matthew), but one of the Gospels does this to extraordinary lengths that's it's absurd and poorly done.

(emphasis mine)
See what you did? You started with Biblical prophecy, made a comment about prophecy in general, and then used Nostradamus and psychics, who had nothing to do with the Bible, as examples. Effectively you said that all prophecy is equal.
But that's just the point: The prophecies on Page 12 are not vague and cannot be interpreted in any number of ways. They each speak of one specific event, and that event happened.

Isn't it odd that the only reason you associate this "relationship" with God is because a book tells you to?

I don't think so. The Bible doesn't prove I have a relationship; it talks about the One I have a relationship with. It doesn't seem odd to me because if you have a relationship with someone you listen to them when they tell you about themselves.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Yes, but what you've described is indistinguishable from you listening to yourself telling you about yourself.

Your description of it combined with your circular defense of it is what make it seem indistinguishable.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

So you are saying you have no proof of god besides the bible which makes it circular logic. The bible is real because god says so and god is real because the bible says so.

I know about God because of what the Bible says, but the evidence for the Bible is not because God said so. There are plenty of evidences for the Bible other than the Bible itself, even more than I already mentioned.

There is evidence that the bible is written by god? What evidence is this? As far as I know you've quoted prophecies, and quoted miracles from the bible but since you can't even substantiate that the bible is true (it doesn't correspond to known history and science, as I have already said), there's no reason to think anything written in it is true.

Can you prove that the prophecy was written before the events happened? And can you prove that it was god who made the prophecy and the writer did not just overhear from some advisor or whatever?

There is every reason to believe this prophecy is a genuine one. While it is true that Isaiah was divided into three parts, and another prophet likely wrote this prophecy, the qualifications for even being a prophet lend a lot of credibility. Here is one of them:

when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Like you said, prophecy has to be 100% correct, and the ancient Jewish people knew this, yet there is not a single claim, as far as I can find, that these prophecies were anything other than genuine, from ancient times up to the present.

How do you know that Deuteronomy is divinely inspired by your god? not any other god, yours. How do you know it's valid?

EVEN IF IT IS:it's a pretty bullshit thing to write. That's like saying, everyone's a psychic until they make wrong predictions, then they're no longer psychics and no longer under my employment. If I ran a company that hires out psychics and I put that in my disclaimer, would you see me for the conman that I am?

So deuteronomy doesn't even come close to proving that the prophecy was written before the events. Someone can easily do that. Or it wasn't divinely inspired at all, it was just some expert's analysis that was written down as prophecy due to superstition. You haven't substantiated anything.

[MindForgedManacle]

I found it:

---

To talk about Biblical prophecy as some uniquely special, indisputable and factual thing is to pretend that people are so stupid that they can't look back at apparent prophecies and try to make them fit with any number of events, or that they cannot construct very vague, general claims of the future. Nostradamus anyone? Psychics? Come on now. We already some of the Gospels do this. I forget which one exactly (I think it's Matthew), but one of the Gospels does this to extraordinary lengths that's it's absurd and poorly done.

---

(emphasis mine)
See what you did? You started with Biblical prophecy, made a comment about prophecy in general, and then used Nostradamus and psychics, who had nothing to do with the Bible, as examples. Effectively you said that all prophecy is equal.

And you completely missed the point and did so dishonestly, which I'll demonstrate: Notice how you cut out the part where I mentioned Bayesian inferencing. It's necessarily the case that, given most prophecies are and have been fraudulent in some manner, that the likelihood any particular prophecy was legitimate is extremely low. This is just simple probabilities. And Bayesian inferencing basically means that it is a more rational inference (because it is more probable) to infer that any particular prophecy was fraudelent because of thus. Hence, that is not a hasty generalization fallacy, just an application of abductive reasoning.

But that's just the point: The prophecies on Page 12 are not vague and cannot be interpreted in any number of ways. They each speak of one specific event, and that event happened.

You interpret them to be specific and clearly fulfilled, yet that is not the case. Quote which ones you think to be the case in your next response to me, and I'll demonstrate that is the case.