so, in my time arguing for christianity, i’ve noticed something. arguments against christianity can be broken into two main categories.
the first one is the more emotional one. its basically the “God must be evil” category. so, the two big arguments in here are the “how can a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being allow so much pain in the world”, and “how can the above being send us to hell, a place of eternal punishment?"
the second one is the more logical approach. this also has two main, broad argument. the first one is questioning the reason for faith, and is personified by the flying spaghetti monster analogy. the second one is addressing any alleged contradictions in the bible (that being moral contradictions, or basic text contradictions, or anything else, such as impossibility of a supreme being, or contradictions of the bible with reality, such as big bang/evolution.)
is this a good run-down? just some thinking i was doing. there isn’t any real point to this, i just like to compartmentalize these things. anyone have anything to add? or any other observations?
Crimson_Blade wrote:
More or less, but it works does it not?
Christian Argument’s
1. COMPLEXITY!
2. APOLOGETICS!
3. BIBLICAL PROPHECIES!
4. ALL ELSE FAILS? THEN CALL THEM EVIL BIGOTS AND SAY THAT THEY REAFFIRMED YOUR FAITH!
Generalizations?
Check.
These threads would go further if people just dropped the damn assumptions and generalizations everyone had about each other. It should be obvious that the majority of Christians here AREN’T THE STEREOTYPICAL KIND AND ARE EVEN NOT THE AVERAGE KIND. I would say the atheists aren’t stereotypical or average either, although I’m not even sure the full extent of stereotypes or what the average atheist is like, so I’ll leave that there.
Frankly, both sides throw out copious logical fallacies, so I really can’t take some of these arguments that seriously. I do applaud the fact that more than one person here has helped me think a bit about my religion, but I’ve been skeptical by conditioning all my life, so I’d be doing it anyway.
It’s funny that the religion section is just a debate between Christianity and Atheism or Islam and Atheism. In the end, that’s what this place boils down to.
What about Christian congregation or discussing things about religion that are more original than one side trying to defend their beliefs while the other side pounds them with indirect insults and trying to tell them what to think?
Crimson_Blade wrote:
More or less, but it works does it not?
Christian Argument’s
1. COMPLEXITY!
2. APOLOGETICS!
3. BIBLICAL PROPHECIES!
4. ALL ELSE FAILS? THEN CALL THEM EVIL BIGOTS AND SAY THAT THEY REAFFIRMED YOUR FAITH!
Generalizations?
Check.
These threads would go further if people just dropped the damn assumptions and generalizations everyone had about each other. It should be obvious that the majority of Christians here AREN’T THE STEREOTYPICAL KIND AND ARE EVEN NOT THE AVERAGE KIND. I would say the atheists aren’t stereotypical or average either, although I’m not even sure the full extent of stereotypes or what the average atheist is like, so I’ll leave that there.
Frankly, both sides throw out copious logical fallacies, so I really can’t take some of these arguments that seriously. I do applaud the fact that more than one person here has helped me think a bit about my religion, but I’ve been skeptical by conditioning all my life, so I’d be doing it anyway.
It’s funny that the religion section is just a debate between Christianity and Atheism or Islam and Atheism. In the end, that’s what this place boils down to.
What about Christian congregation or discussing things about religion that are more original than one side trying to defend their beliefs while the other side pounds them with indirect insults and trying to tell them what to think?
that would be my dream of this place. but, those discussions don’t seem to ketch on very well.
kev360 wrote:
so, in my time arguing for christianity, i’ve noticed something. arguments against christianity can be broken into two main categories.
the first one is the more emotional one. its basically the “God must be evil” category. so, the two big arguments in here are the “how can a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being allow so much pain in the world”, and “how can the above being send us to hell, a place of eternal punishment?“
These argument are from logic and reasoning. Eg. How could a omnipotent, omniscient god let evil exist, can this god make a stone so heavy that not even it can lift it, can this god, make a square, triangle?
kev360 wrote:
the second one is the more logical approach. this also has two main, broad argument. the first one is questioning the reason for faith, and is personified by the flying spaghetti monster analogy. the second one is addressing any alleged contradictions in the bible (that being moral contradictions, or basic text contradictions, or anything else, such as impossibility of a supreme being, or contradictions of the bible with reality, such as big bang/evolution.)
Now I’m sure you can see all the arguments, are from logic and reasoning.
__________________
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
kev360 wrote:
so, in my time arguing for christianity, i’ve noticed something. arguments against christianity can be broken into two main categories.
the first one is the more emotional one. its basically the “God must be evil” category. so, the two big arguments in here are the “how can a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being allow so much pain in the world”, and “how can the above being send us to hell, a place of eternal punishment?“
These argument are from logic and reasoning. Eg. How could a omnipotent, omniscient god let evil exist, can this god make a stone so heavy that not even it can lift it, can this god, make a square, triangle?
kev360 wrote:
the second one is the more logical approach. this also has two main, broad argument. the first one is questioning the reason for faith, and is personified by the flying spaghetti monster analogy. the second one is addressing any alleged contradictions in the bible (that being moral contradictions, or basic text contradictions, or anything else, such as impossibility of a supreme being, or contradictions of the bible with reality, such as big bang/evolution.)
Now I’m sure you can see all the arguments, are from logic and reasoning.
no, no, yeah, i’m not denying that they all make sense. i’m just saying the first two are different. like...idk, emotional isn’t the best word. but...idk, more personal? its like the person saying that they don’t LIKE God (if God were to exist) for this and this and this reason. the other is like a, b and therefore c.
kev360 wrote:
so, in my time arguing for christianity, i’ve noticed something. arguments against christianity can be broken into two main categories.
the first one is the more emotional one. its basically the “God must be evil” category. so, the two big arguments in here are the “how can a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being allow so much pain in the world”, and “how can the above being send us to hell, a place of eternal punishment?“
These argument are from logic and reasoning. Eg. How could a omnipotent, omniscient god let evil exist, can this god make a stone so heavy that not even it can lift it, can this god, make a square, triangle?
kev360 wrote:
the second one is the more logical approach. this also has two main, broad argument. the first one is questioning the reason for faith, and is personified by the flying spaghetti monster analogy. the second one is addressing any alleged contradictions in the bible (that being moral contradictions, or basic text contradictions, or anything else, such as impossibility of a supreme being, or contradictions of the bible with reality, such as big bang/evolution.)
Now I’m sure you can see all the arguments, are from logic and reasoning.
no, no, yeah, i’m not denying that they all make sense. i’m just saying the first two are different. like...idk, emotional isn’t the best word. but...idk, more personal? its like the person saying that they don’t LIKE God (if God were to exist) for this and this and this reason. the other is like a, b and therefore c.
I disagree, locking someone up and touchering them forever doesnt make sense. Logical conclusion is that this is made up. This is usually the response you get from people saying “god loves you”.
eg.
__________________
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
kev360 wrote:
so, in my time arguing for christianity, i’ve noticed something. arguments against christianity can be broken into two main categories.
the first one is the more emotional one. its basically the “God must be evil” category. so, the two big arguments in here are the “how can a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being allow so much pain in the world”, and “how can the above being send us to hell, a place of eternal punishment?“
These argument are from logic and reasoning. Eg. How could a omnipotent, omniscient god let evil exist, can this god make a stone so heavy that not even it can lift it, can this god, make a square, triangle?
kev360 wrote:
the second one is the more logical approach. this also has two main, broad argument. the first one is questioning the reason for faith, and is personified by the flying spaghetti monster analogy. the second one is addressing any alleged contradictions in the bible (that being moral contradictions, or basic text contradictions, or anything else, such as impossibility of a supreme being, or contradictions of the bible with reality, such as big bang/evolution.)
Now I’m sure you can see all the arguments, are from logic and reasoning.
no, no, yeah, i’m not denying that they all make sense. i’m just saying the first two are different. like...idk, emotional isn’t the best word. but...idk, more personal? its like the person saying that they don’t LIKE God (if God were to exist) for this and this and this reason. the other is like a, b and therefore c.
I disagree, locking someone up and touchering them forever doesnt make sense. Logical conclusion is that this is made up. This is usually the response you get from people saying “god loves you”.
Touchering? lol
But I agree with kev, there is a difference. Yes, they’re both based on logic, but one is trying to convince the person being argued to that if God exists he wouldn’t be a nice guy. Morality is subjective, so to be honest, to argue that something is evil you need to have some form of anchor of what you can both agree on being evil, which cannot really be founded as good and evil can only come from subjective perspectives. Where most ethical debates come in is when people try to convince people of the morality of various sub rules of ethics that stem from the implications of this idea, for example, someone saying; Okay, we both agree theft is evil, isn’t music piracy a form of theft because it breaches the owners rights over their own intellectual property? Or someone saying; early term abortion isn’t murder (which both people arguing is evil) because it’s just a bunch of cells and not a conscious being. Anything with metabolism can be alive, but they’re pretty much a zombie if they’re not sentient (arguing over the implications and technicalities of what is murder and what evil does or does not stem from murder) etc.
See?
Ah, how did I miss that! lol. I usually only use this argument to show how silly and evil the bible is. But I have seen people use it in the way kev stated.
__________________
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
