Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[loganonekenobi]

This post is about persuasion.... yes?
I'll approach this from different angle. We can not know if the miracles happened in the past. In the present no proper study has shown any divine or even supernatural influence. (this by itself should be enough but...)

Look at the humanity around you.

If you have the opportunity to see other people that are christian, catholic, hindu, buhdist, muslim, and pagan of all sorts you may notice a few things.

1) they all think that they are right in philosophy and others are wrong especialy when it comes to the after life (which no one can prove we have).

2)a few are really good people and do great things for others.

3)a few of them are really terrible people and would kill you if they could for what ever reason or at the very least do not have good will toward anyone.

4)most are just plain folks who grew up in their culture and took on the belief system that their parents gave them. They would help you if it wasn't too much out of their way but would not shy away from violence if they thought it would help their situation even though many of the faiths, with some exceptions, say that violence is not the answer.

5) there are a lot of dumb people and a lot of intelligent people of all faiths (and lack of faiths). The dumb ones shout at you what they think they know is truth and the intelligent ones can run you into circles of logic and faint evidence to try to change your thinking.

what you won't see (espcialy if you are deep into their teritory/culture) is any real difference between them as far as how they behave toward each other and toward strangers.

we could argue that the Muslims are violent but then one just needs to look at history 500 years in the past and see the violent and aggressive expansion of Christianity was pretty damn brutal. Not that correlation is causation but Islam happens to be about 500 years younger than Christianity which happens to be 500 years younger than Buhdism. we are not sure when Hindu started.

My point is that no divine presence seems to be with any of these people as their actions don't seem to really reflect that some holy spirit has made them better/different people in any way.

I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of many of these faiths. There was no difference except in the doctrine. The actions are the same.

There it is. Others can argue till doomsday on the past but if you look at the present then the evidence is clear.

[Mr Greene]

As far as I can tell the core problem with the possible 'hard' evidence is that it is also classified as 'relics' and thus has/had a financial value to the church.
eg: Splinters of the 'True Cross', the mass of which when considered together amount to several forests...
Therein lies the problem with the 'masses of evidence', there is simply too bloody much of it and the bulk is obviously fake, produced for financial gain.
We have only to look at the Shroud of Turin to see how unreliable the evidence is.

[Aractus]

Those 'relics' are not counted as evidence by any serious scholar.

[dyresand]

Help you disprove your religion OP... let's  start...

two thousand years of bullshit TWO THOUSAND YEARS of bullshit. Historical inaccuracies, documentation of a jewish zombie who died for everyone's sins but have no proof of his birth or existence at all within  history. Again there is no proof for any of the stories to have happened and their is religions older than christianity. When people start talking about how the world is six thousand years old it makes no logical sense what so ever.
And lets talk creation if that was a thing god is a shitty creator i give nature  some major respect though.

[Mr Greene]

Those 'relics' are not counted as evidence by any serious scholar.

'Scholar'... Theology isn't counted as a subject by any serious academic...

Yours with all due respect,

R M J Pendragon Esq BSc MAAT

[Brian37]

What is to "disprove"? That comic book was written by bronze age scientifically ignorant humans. How much time do you waste trying to disprove Apollo or Thor?

[Brian37]

And to the atheists claiming the man named Jesus existed, no, there is no evidence of that individual. Jesus was a common name and crucifixion was a common torture, but would have been done with a capital "T" and not the cross we see as as the religious symbol today. There certainly was an influence that sparked the splinter Jewish sect, but it none of the Gosples were written during the alleged time of the Character. Jesus was concocted after the fact, likely based on a Jew our group of Jews painting themselves as persecuted. The motif of the underdog has an emotional appeal. The myth was based on desires and exaggerations of splinter Jews wanting to usher a savoir in their lifetime.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What is to "disprove"? That comic book was written by bronze age scientifically ignorant humans. How much time do you waste trying to disprove Apollo or Thor?

An English committee wrote the Bible around the year 700 as a gift to the Pope.  They threw in a lot of BS to make it a parody.  The Bible didn't exist before they wrote it.

[Kitty Galore]

Not "disproving" anything. Nothing has been proved. It's that simple.

[Aractus]

And to the atheists claiming the man named Jesus existed, no, there is no evidence of that individual. Jesus was a common name and crucifixion was a common torture, but would have been done with a capital "T" and not the cross we see as as the religious symbol today. There certainly was an influence that sparked the splinter Jewish sect, but it none of the Gosples were written during the alleged time of the Character. Jesus was concocted after the fact, likely based on a Jew our group of Jews painting themselves as persecuted. The motif of the underdog has an emotional appeal. The myth was based on desires and exaggerations of splinter Jews wanting to usher a savoir in their lifetime.

Brian, everything you say is pure conjecture because you never back it up with anything from a qualified scholar or relevant expert.

If Jesus was "concocted after the fact" then how does James the Just make at least 16 direct references to the Sermon on the Mount well before any of the gospels are written?