Debunking Christianity? It's actually quite as simple as asking "why?"

[Darth]

Did someone just try and shift their burden of proof or what?

[TheYoungAtheist]

Did someone just try and shift their burden of proof or what?

What?

[Darth]

Did someone just try and shift their burden of proof or what?

What?

"I and many other christians question alot, we do not question the existance of God, we know He is real and you can not prove that our belief is a false belief. You however are welcome to waste your time."

not you, him

[TheYoungAtheist]

Did someone just try and shift their burden of proof or what?

What?

"I and many other christians question alot, we do not question the existance of God, we know He is real and you can not prove that our belief is a false belief. You however are welcome to waste your time."

not you, him

Oh, sorry

[Anymouse]

Did someone just try and shift their burden of proof or what?

I always thought that was a valid method of logical discussion, whether rationalism or apologetics: When you have no proof, make the other guy show why you have no proof, and why not having proof is really proof.

That is usually followed either by a] making up your evidence, or b] misrepresenting your opponent's.
James

"The Body of Christ is not a snack session." — CBC Television series Little Mosque on the Prairie, Season 4, Ep. 7.

[Cinjin]

---

Yep - that's a fair perception. Belief in anything unseen does tend to make one hypocritical in some way or another because my beliefs are no more valid than anyone else's. That's the inevitable illogical conclusion and paradox to who I am. I have found no way around it.

It's got nothing to do with it being "unseen" - both you and the theists have proposed a deity for which you make certain claims, neither of you have any good reason to believe what you do so your critique of their deities motivations are frankly rather bunk - sure, you make less claims about the motivations of the deity than they do, you don't make claims about the presence of events that aren't confirmed for instance, but it's still the same type of claim despite it being less frequent.

The difference that seems to make me tolerable is that I'm not going around claiming I have proof, spouting ridiculous assertions about the age of the world, condemning others to hell, and denying contradictions with "author's original context" arguments. In short, I don't claim to actually know God.

More tolerable, sure, but are your beliefs respectable? No, I can't respect you for having a belief in some concept for which you have no good reason to believe just because you don't want to order others around with some assumed moral authority like the theists.

...and without deism - I would (and possibly will) default to atheism. I will be the first to concede that God may not exist. It is an impossible thing to prove. For now however, Deism allows me the small amount of faith I always wanted and the ability to ridicule silly books about goat herders and superstition.

So you believe in a deity because you want to believe in a god?

---

First of all let me say, I'm not sure what it is you would like me to concede with this second post. I already said that my belief in a creator God insures some level of personal hypocrisy. It seems a little like baiting to me. However, you clearly have a bone to pick with me so I will indulge the argument for the time being - as I do usually respect the nature of your intellectual posts.

It's got nothing to do with it being "unseen" - both you and the theists have proposed a deity for which you make certain claims, neither of you have any good reason to believe what you do so your critique of their deities motivations are frankly rather bunk - sure, you make less claims about the motivations of the deity than they do, you don't make claims about the presence of events that aren't confirmed for instance, but it's still the same type of claim despite it being less frequent.

Actually, the only hard fast claim I've ever made of "my" God is that he is a Creator - and to the best of my knowledge, I have never made a claim other than that. In addition, I've always held to the fact that I don't know if there even IS a God - I simply choose to believe there is. You said I make less claims about his motivations ... incorrect - I make NO claims as to his motivations. I merely said that the motivations that others claim as hard fact are utterly ridiculous. If you want to accuse me of being a fool for believing in God - that's fair. It is not fair however to interpolate my ridicule of the revealed religions of the world as some kind of assertion that my beliefs in a Creator are any more valid than the beliefs they have of their god.

More tolerable, sure, but are your beliefs respectable? No, I can't respect you for having a belief in some concept for which you have no good reason to believe just because you don't want to order others around with some assumed moral authority like the theists.

You're an atheist. I certainly don't expect you to respect my beliefs (even though I respect your lack of belief). I have a reason for what I believe. Clearly it's not good enough for you, and that's completely fine with me. If you choose not to respect me as a person because of one thing in my personality that you consider a flaw than sadly there is nothing I can do about that. Many of my very good friends have a strange idea and/or practice that I think is an effort in futility, but as a whole, I still choose to love and respect them.

So you believe in a deity because you want to believe in a god?

Certainly. What other reason could there possibly be? I don't believe in heaven or hell. I'm not worried about my soul. I sure as hell have no tangible evidence of God. Yes, I simply choose to believe in God. Don't get me wrong - I tried atheism on for awhile and it fit ok. Atheism makes far more sense to my logical mind, but you cannot always fight something you feel in your chest. I cannot explain why I found the idea of a Being that had the ability to create so compelling. Highly intelligent, but imperfect. Powerful, but certainly not omnipotent. Someone or something I will in all likelihood never know. Are these characteristics he has? I have no idea, but I sure as hell don't go around telling people that they are, and defending that point with a really old fucking book. And that is why I will continue to ridicule Christianity without guilt and only minor hypocrisy.


The short of it: If you're looking for a valid defense of one's faith ... it does not exist. If you're looking for an apology for my ridicule of Christianity ... that too does not exist.

[Godscreated]

I and many other christians question alot, we do not question the existance of God,

Which is where you go wrong.


BTW, didn't your fucking perfect god "create" Lucifer, too?

What kind of a fucked up move was that? For a 'god' your boy is quite a loser.

Yes God did create an angel named Lucifer, however Lucifer made himself into the evil being he has become, like you he chose to use his freewill in the wrong way.

[Paul the Human]

Everyone is as God made them. They cannot be any other way.

[Godscreated]

He did not implant the ability to be violent,ever. Lucifer started the first war, he lost and was thrown out of heaven. Poverty, murder, rape and ect. are all the resposibility of man, as an atheist you must agree with this last statement.
God did create a perfect man and woman, and giving them freewill had to be a part of a perfect creation, without freewill man would have been no more than puppets, is this how you would want God to treat you if you were a believer. Someone in this post said that christians do not question, they do not know many christians, I and many other christians question alot, we do not question the existance of God, we know He is real and you can not prove that our belief is a false belief. You however are welcome to waste your time.

Humans are "god's" creation, right? Which means, he built every fiber of a humans being? WHICH means he must of implanted even the most basic of survival instincts. So, your saying humans INVENTED violence? That we created an instinct or emotion? Humans do not have this ability, nor do false gods. You also say that you "question". Isn't there an often said quote that states "IF you do not believe in gods word, you do not believe in god" ? I believe questioning is a form of doubt.

God did not give man the ability to be violent, that is the direct result of the original sin. I do not question the existance of God as I stated in the above, I do question how the Bible might be translated or the way some scriptures are taught but not the existance of God and I do not question wither the Bible is God's word. I have at times questioned my salvation, I have always come to terms with that. To question is only human. Questioning can be a form of doubt or it can be an avenue to find the truth without doubting.

[Napoléon]

God did not give man the ability to be violent, that is the direct result of the original sin.

But in order to commit the original sin god gave man the ABILITY to sin. Right? And being all knowing, god knew that when he gave man this ability that man WOULD sin. He also knew this would lead to violence.

Whatever you end up saying you cannot get away from the fact that if your god is really all you say he is, then one way or another, he gave man the ability to be violent. Frankly it's absurd that you even deny it.
The only thing which comes to mind is HERP DERP.