Christianity has been debunked once and for all

Status
Not open for further replies.
trishmybiscuits said:
The reason that I chose the title I did for this thread is because I don't believe that any rationally minded person could read the essay that this thread is based on and still attach any credibility to Christianity. Keep in mind, I said any rationally minded person. Ultimately there's people who are going to believe what they want to believe. There's also people who walk around with the mentality that every word of the bible is true and, therefore, none of it can be questioned. But for people who have open, rational, and unbiased minds, it should resonate.
Click to expand...

the problem is..christianity has been debunked years before this article...which imo is a lame attempt backed up with as much hearsay and opinions as the bible itself....you can only debunk with facts...any facts that this article stated were from age old arguments....great thread....rediculous article.......
 
Proof positive of the absurdity, injustice, intolerance, violence, and other reprehensible behavior propagated in the bible
Click to expand...

Just because the bible records "absurdity, injustice, intolerance, violence, and other reprehensible behavior" does not mean that it propagates it.

The Bible is 100x more reliable as historical record than any other document. The first printed books were all bibles, its the original benchmark for literacy.

Most people think the bible says other than what it does, because they have not READ it properly, if even at all.

Most people do not know how to read criticaly from within the spirit of the author's hitorical perspective.

There are dozens of books in the Bible with contrary opions and three dimensional debates.

If you are going to knock it - do so fairly - what other book would you say is better?
let me repeat that -

what other book would you say is better?
 
Richard Dawkins... and morality-based approach
Click to expand...
are two phrases that should only be used in the same sentence when separated with the word "NOT"

This is the idiot that suggests infidelity is moral because we all have a 'selfish gene'. This he calls 'science' ! Ha!

What Dawkins is, is an overgrown little boy with a genital complex. And he can't write very well either, so its not even entertaining nonsense, its boring nonsense.

to the questions posed by dogmatic faith.
Click to expand...

Dawkins equates faith with dogma. He cannot see science as dogma, like his quackery is. And he has never even heard of :

RATIONAL FAITH
 
The Final Debunking Of Christianity
By DARILAC SEMARGO-BLOBI​

It is they who are always waging a war against gays. It is they who are always waging a war against people who are pro-abortion. It is they who are always waging a war against what our kids are taught, or aren't taught, in school - evolution, for instance. It is they who are always waging a war against gay marriage. And on and on...
Click to expand...

DARILAC SEMARGO-BLOBI is a sodomizing child-murderer.

What kind of a name is BLOBI?
What utter KAK!
 
PoseidonsNet said:
what other book would you say is better?
Click to expand...

For morality? Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita
For allegory? The Epic of Gilgamesh (you might like it - it even has a flood story)
For accuracy? Saying the bible is accurate, historically speaking, is flat out wrong. Whoever is giving you this information is grossly misinformed. Academic historians can't agree if Jesus even existed! There is no historical evidence that Herod had newborns killed (derived straight out of Exodus) and speaking of Exodus - no historical (outside the bible) or archeological evidence exists for the Exodus!

For readability? In my opinion, just about any damn book is better reading!

Yes, I've read it more than once - the Living and KJV.

And you calling Richard Dawkins an idiot - are you kidding?

Believe what you want but don't try spreading baloney especially in such childish and hostile missives.
 
To have faith in reason is not an oxymoron as faith and reason are not opposites.
How can you be reasonable unless you first have faith in reason itself?

Thus faith is a priori to reason.

Please show your work.
Click to expand...
1) Calculate the average income of Christian countries.
2) Calculate the average income of the rest.

3) No contest.
 
And you calling Richard Dawkins an idiot - are you kidding?
Click to expand...

No. I am saying he IS an idiot for trying to argue that infidelity is somehow moral, and he can produce NO substance from his work that does anything else.

His lectures were attrocious guilt-ridden attempts to do nothing more than justify whoring.

He contradicted himself throughout.

This is logical argument: infidelity is childish.
 
The Baghavad Gita is a beautiful book. But Arjuna is a warrior who regrets his violence. Not the essence of morality at all.

If you challenge the Bible's historical value, perhaps you could compare it with other ancient literature. And all the other modern literature exists as offshoots of the original book : The Bible.

Shakespeare even wrote one of the versions. So you consider The Bard to be a fool do you?
 
PoseidonsNet said:
To have faith in reason is not an oxymoron as faith and reason are not opposites.
How can you be reasonable unless you first have faith in reason itself?

Thus faith is a priori to reason.


1) Calculate the average income of Christian countries.
2) Calculate the average income of the rest.

3) No contest.
Click to expand...

Argument one: begging the question
You assume reason requires faith - it doesn't. Belief is a priori to faith. Logic is a priori to reason. Her handmaidens are evidence and observation.

Argument two: post hoc
You are assuming the income of Christian countries is based on their being Christian. "After this, therefore because of this." Of course you no doubt noticed that those incomes didn't start to rise until the age of science - perhaps i should make my own post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.. hmmm?
 
PoseidonsNet said:
No. I am saying he IS an idiot for trying to argue that infidelity is somehow moral, and he can produce NO substance from his work that does anything else.

His lectures were attrocious guilt-ridden attempts to do nothing more than justify whoring.

He contradicted himself throughout.

This is logical argument: infidelity is childish.
Click to expand...

Now you're lying - you did call him an idiot. Just because you do not understand what he is saying does not make him wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top