>the argument at literary volume Over centuries hundreds of theologians wrote thousands of volumens. How can YOU possibly compete with that?
>the argument at presupposed ignorance I won't speak with ignorants. You have to first read all of st. Augustine and Aquinas. By the way, those are heavily rooted on Plato and Aristotle, so read all of those too. Then the entire Bible, and when you're done you can get back to me.
>"pearls before swine" argument I have all the arguments, but I won't share them with you, because you would just ignore them anyway.
>argument at faith Christianity is primarily about faith, so I don't have to give you any arguments.
>argument at social benefit Christianity is beneficial to the society, so why would anyone even want to argument against it?
>argument at fedora LMAO atheist *tips fedora*
With those arguments in store, Christians are impregnable in debate.
This, if we can learn calculus without ever doing math before why can't we simply to one sentence religious text that took thousand years of understanding. Checkmate theists
Adam Moore
>the argument at literary volume
Noah Wilson
Exactly, thankfully we don't have to spend time anymore to learn math and physics or philosophy like in the old times, we need a mere sentence and we know as much as PhD's. We crushed the authority and its great.
Nathaniel Garcia
The plural of 'volumen' is 'volumina'.
Isaiah Nelson
>Then the entire Bible >Arguing with Christianity when you haven't even read the Bible That is genuine ignorance, not supposed ignorance.
Ryan Baker
>can read the entire Bible No, you're an ableist
Matthew Bell
>>the argument at literary volume >Over centuries hundreds of theologians wrote thousands of volumens. How can YOU possibly compete with that?
Chuck Tingle is trying his hardest.
Jaxson Walker
There are plenty of books that summarise centuries of math into concise, practical form. Why is there no such thing in theology?
Just reading the Bible isn't enough. I've read large chunks of it, and when I point to the significant inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments, I never get any sensible explenations.
Also even Christians acknowledge that in the Bible there are no arguments to confirm that >personal (conscious) God exists >he actively influences the material world that aren't circular.
Adrian Cox
>Can't read the Bible You have a hatred of the Bible and you've never read it. Well, that's one way to ensure you never have to engage in reasoned discussion with the religion you're ridiculing.
Alexander Parker
>christian theology
Ethan Harris
>when I point to the significant inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments, I never get any sensible explenations. That's why you go full Marcionite or jew.
Andrew Morgan
Actually, like I said already, you can simplify any field and anything with a simple sentence. And no, you're not missing absolutely anything if those things were slowly upping each other.
Hunter Moore
I had a Marcionist phase until I read more Bible and realised that in the Gospels Jesus himself references the Old Testament several times. Also all the relevant Churches consider it a heresy that used to be punishable by death.
Hudson Lewis
>Christianity is beneficial to the society, so why would anyone even want to argument against it? Because it is false. Also, your idea of social benefit is ideological, and practical effects of christianity and atheism are most likely too complex to be reduced to a simplistic good-bad dichotomy. The rest of the arguments are acceptable, sort of, but I fucking hate this one. It is pure utilitarianism and materialism, something that religion is supposed to be against.
Leo Cook
Just because Jesus references the old testamenr doesn't mean it can't be obsolete with his death. Also who cares about corrupt churches?
Kayden Adams
>reductio ad absurdum Of course you can't simplify all knowledge within a single sentence, but is it too much to ask for to do it in a single book?
>inb4 Summa Theologiae Only a very short part at the beginning is actually concerned with proving God's existence. The proofs themselves are pretty weak, in the sense that they only work for God defined in a narrow and abstract sense (the rules of the universe and its beginning).
Jaxon Powell
>Just because Jesus references the old testamenr doesn't mean it can't be obsolete with his death. It kind of does.
Ian Rogers
Fuck off Judaizer. I pray you'll burn in Hell along with the other Petrine heretics.
Angel Howard
>"pearls before swine" argument Do you argue with rocks? Materialists can be ignored based on their beliefs. Unless, of course, they take it seriously enough to assume everything to be due to matter, including interpretations, opinions, fiction etc. Falsehood, however, would cease to exist, as it would be merely 'the sameness' as every other perception; the outcome of the same matter in a different relative structure.
>argument at faith >Christianity is primarily about faith, so I don't have to give you any arguments. There is a categorical difference between humans and animals, animals and lifeless matter - not at all unlike the separation between the elect and the reject. You seem to take "arguments" as some holy thing, which can not nor should be mistreated, ignored or made fun of. Why? What gives it this hierarchical status as 'taboo' or 'necessary'? It is merely another thing in existence, how do you rank it? Why should we care about your ranking and preferences? It follows that it should be in our system of perception that those things are prioritized- to whatever extent we perceive it. So it follows that you are merely trying to undermine our position, without having your own. It's a blind attack from the void, instigating us to do something regarding our own perception for an anonymous poster's convenience. I rank that pretty low. Especially since he offers no alternative structures nor perceptions, no axioms, no vision.
I wish we could just disregard the Jewish Testament, but unfortunately we can't. The irreconcilable inconsitencies between the Old and the New Testaments is what prevents me from being a Christian.
Angel Lopez
the solution is quite simple: ackowledge that the Gospel of John is the only authentic gospel, that Mark was written as a Petrine response to it, that Luke is a hagiography based on hearsay, Mark, and redacted John (like the annointing of Jesus event, which is a fusion of the fake account in Mark and the true account in John, where his feet are annointed by Mary), and Matthew is a theologically evolved Petrine apocryphon based on Mark and Luke (with domesticated/redacted elements from John).
Most of those references are from the synoptics, and they're edited in by the authors of those gospels.
P.S. Peter never witnessed Jesus after his resurrection. John 21 was originally the last chapter of Mark. It is entirely made up. The Church later redacted it at the end of John.
There, I fixed Christianity.
Ryan Nelson
>Materialists can be ignored based on their beliefs Refutation of strict materialism =/= proof of personal God =/= proof of the divinity of Jesus
>You seem to take "arguments" as some holy thing, which can not nor should be mistreated, ignored or made fun of. Why? I don't. I just assume that serious philosophical/theological propositions should be based on arguments. Of course you can reduce all problems to the matter of "my feelings VS your feelings", but then you reject the concept of objective truth.
Jaxon Martinez
>Refutation of strict materialism =/= proof of personal God =/= proof of the divinity of Jesus It doesn't need to be. I don't argue with rocks.
Aiden Morris
>"arguments against Christianity are wrong because materialism is false" >I'm not a materialist, and refutation of materialism isn't proof for the divinity of Jesus >"I... I don't argue with materialists!"
This post gave me hope, thanks
Elijah Ortiz
>I just assume that serious philosophical/theological propositions should be based on arguments. Philosophy goes to Veeky Forums :^) >Of course you can reduce all problems to the matter of "my feelings VS your feelings", I can't. I can reduce simple issues and simpletons to their own claims of themselves. >but then you reject the concept of objective truth. Objective truth is that you can't access anything that isn't part of it. You are merely an environmental factor, as are your arguments. They offer no prioritization for how things should be, but are keen on changing things. This is a paradox of reason, assuming they speak the truth of their intentions. To assume that they lie and are evil, that seems reasonable, no? You want us to stop moving whilst you keep on running.
Why do anything without priorities / hierarchy? All actions and their lack are equal. Including arguing and not.
Kevin White
I wasn't proving the divinity of Christ. >I'm not a materialist Then what are you? Show yourself! Mere statements don't compete with one another without the perception giving them meaning.
Caleb Hall
>they're edited in by the authors of those gospels. Compare for example the Isaiah quotation at the beginning of Mark with John's recounting. In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist merely uses it as a witticism or a reference (the same way someone would quote or paraphrase a certain author to make a point today, not necessarily in agreement with the quoted excerpt; see for example the widespread use of quips from Shakespeare), as a way of proving his "credentials" (that he is knowledgable about the Jewish faith, not just some loon; preachers do something similar all the time, quoting random verses when talking with someone, not always relevant to the discussion) to his pharisee interlocutors, while in Mark this mutated into a prophetic message about Jesus, conflated with an excerpt from Malachi. If you actually read that referenced passage from Isaiah, you'll notice that in context is has absolutely nothing to do with any Messianic message of any sort, Isaiah talking about events that were imminent to his time (which is why Mark's author had to append a quote from Malachi to make it work).
The practice then became more and more prominent, until Matthew which is interspersed with references and allusions to Jewish Scriptures all over, added in by the author.
Connor Evans
>when I point to the significant inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments, I never get any sensible explenations
I cringed. Fuck off back to Redit.
Evan Adams
>Then what are you? Show yourself! I don't have, and belive that no human alive has, knowledge on whether spirit is a material or immaterial phenomenon. This discussion is not relevant in the context of proving/disproving a personal God or the divinity of Christ.
>Why do anything without priorities / hierarchy? All actions and their lack are equal. Including arguing and not. If we reject all value statements, and assume that argumentation and lack thereof are equal, then we come to the conclusion that faith and lack thereof are also equal.
Chase Perez
We really need a board for discussion of Christianity
Camden Edwards
>I don't have, and belive that no human alive has, knowledge on whether spirit is a material or immaterial phenomenon. Yet you have knowledge that only knowledge is to be taken seriously? > This discussion is not relevant in the context of proving/disproving a personal God or the divinity of Christ. That's not at all what I'm doing. I'm questioning the reason I should take any of your text input seriously. So far you haven't been able to bring about any reason to do so.
>If we reject all value statements God is 'the' value statement. >and assume that argumentation and lack thereof are equal, then we come to the conclusion that faith and lack thereof are also equal. Then why not believe?
As a Christian, pretty funny, but surely you must understand the irony of your post.
Hudson Reed
Now this, this is to be expected of you ape-men.
Ryder Brooks
No irony intended. It's a funny video, but nothing turned me into an atheist more quickly than looking at the Catholic church and its history.
As well as there being no logical argument or basis for superstitious beliefs, although that apparently does not matter because >muh faith
Ethan Foster
>It's a funny video, but nothing turned me into an atheist more quickly than looking at the Catholic church and its history. Take a look at atheist history, then. Will it make you a theist?
Lucas Nelson
Assuming that >argumentation and lack thereof are equal >proof and lack thereof are equal >faith and lack thereof are equal We come to the conclusion that there is neither objective truth nor falsehood. Christian theology is just as good as Muslim or Pagan, or no theology at all. There is no lie and no truth, a rigorous scientific analysis is as good as pure conjecture. While a self-consistent view, it's one I can't agree with, and I bet that most people do, even if just by pure intuition.
Ryder Robinson
Meh, not lit related, but wanted to share something beautiful with you guys since people have started dropping unrelated Louie CK bits.
Well, then, assume that. I will keep assuming something else, though.
Camden Sanchez
>Veeky Forums used to have great discussions on Christianity with well-versed and knowledgeable believers/apologists and atheists alike >now it's a literal fedora engaging in pointless polemics collecting "le rayddit" replies from poltardian "tradishoonalists" who namedrop theologists they haven't actually read
Owen White
'Atheism' isn't very well defined. A Catholic probably won't worship Dionysus; are they an atheist? What about the great big flying octopus gods - with regard to them, everyone I've met is an atheist.
Christian Rogers
>back in my day I'm going to stop you right there old man.
Andrew Miller
>it's one I can't agree with Why not? Once I hear this, we may start talking about theology - if your stance and axioms make sense.
Brody Bailey
Like I said before, there are Christian readings of the scriptures that do away with superstitions to the point where they are agnostic about God's nature. But do as you wish, contain Christianity into the orthodox strawman that you've built for it just to justify your a posteriori intuitions. I'm not trying to convince you of anything user, but don't claim to understand Christianity if you're not willing to study it properly.
William Torres
It was an argument against such assumption, you dummy.
If you're the same person all along, you keep wavering between opposing positions only to contradict me. What's the point in that?
Grayson Carter
>'Atheism' isn't very well defined. A Catholic probably won't worship Dionysus; are they an atheist? I've heard the opposite about Christians, that they probably do worship Dionysus. :^) >What about the great big flying octopus gods - with regard to them, everyone I've met is an atheist. But I've noted that the adherents of the flying spaghetti monster do make stale pasta. Heck, their entire world view looks like it!
I noted the emphasis on worship, rather than "belief of the existence of". You're mixing the meaning.
Nathaniel Taylor
>It was an argument against such assumption, you dummy. No it wasn't. You merely stated your incapability to assume that!
>You keep wavering between opposing positions only to contradict me. I don't need to make any statements regarding my own beliefs, I can just attack yours. :^)
Wyatt Wright
Because I know that some things are true and some are not. If just one thing can be proven true (like the fact that I'm writing this post, or that I'm alive), it follows that truth and falsehood objectively exist, and from that follows that there is a distinguishing quality between truth and falsehood, and that quality is proof. Argumentation is defined as presenting proof for a statement. A statement that can't be proven (by experiment, measurement, thought experiment or deduction) can be assumed false.
Cameron Edwards
>Because I know that some things are true and some are not. What things are not true?
James Bennett
>A statement that can't be proven (by experiment, measurement, thought experiment or deduction) can be assumed false. >Because I know How do these work together, I wonder?
Gabriel Green
I know that I exist. How? Because "I know that I don't exist" is a contradiction. I've just proven my existence. Thus, the statement "I don't exist" is false. Thus, there is objective truth and falsehood. Thus, there must be something to separate true form false. This something is proof.
Henry Gomez
>Thus, there must be something to separate true form false. >This something is proof. That's a leap of faith and you know it.
>I know that I exist. >How? Because "I know that I don't exist" is a contradiction. Why do things need to make sense (aka. not be contradictions)? You need to presuppose Logos.
Noah Ward
>"the distinguishing quality between truth and falsehood is proof" >That's a leap of faith What else could it be then?
>Why do things need to make sense (aka. not be contradictions)? You need to presuppose Logos. I did so implcitly
Christian Sanchez
>"the distinguishing quality between truth and falsehood is proof" Prove this.
Robert Taylor
You don't prove definitions.
Christopher Thomas
Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Dylan Stewart
an equal sign works in both directions, so in this way you also define >"truth" is Jesus Christ >"life" is Jesus Christ Which is not consistent with the current and accepted definitions of "truth" and "life". A term can't have two definitions. If you wanted to redefine "truth" and "life", you would have to change all the definitions and proofs that already use those terms.
Justin Powell
>Which is not consistent with the current and accepted definitions of "truth" and "life" What do you mean? That truth is not mere data, and life is not mere particles?
Wyatt Robinson
>an equal sign works in both directions Mathematics is an invention of human mind, not a statement about reality. A sign is a symbol of something. >current and accepted definitions So there is disagreement. So what? How does 'current year' make anything different, and if it does, what makes it relevant?
Thomas Jenkins
To conduct a proof you need 1. an axiom (or a statement that has been proven previously) 2. definitions 3. rules of inference If by "current year" you mean definitions, they make ALL the difference. You can't conduct a proof without definitions.
It's funny that the two most basic definitions are circular: >a statement is defined as true if (and only if) it can be proven >proof is defined as the arguments for the truthfulness of a statement But as you go deeper in the chain of definitions (one thing defines the second, second defines the third etc.) you have to come to this circularity eventually, it's the problem of basic concept.
>I know that I exist. I woke up on day and realized I didn't exist, it was quite a shock
> is a contradiction don't get too tangled up by this word, God could as easily contradict himself into existence as out of it
Jeremiah Sanchez
>the solution is quite simple: ackowledge that the Gospel of John is the only authentic gospel, that Mark was written as a Petrine response to it, that Luke is a hagiography based on hearsay, Mark, and redacted John (like the annointing of Jesus event, which is a fusion of the fake account in Mark and the true account in John, where his feet are annointed by Mary), and Matthew is a theologically evolved Petrine apocryphon based on Mark and Luke (with domesticated/redacted elements from John).
Wait, what? Explain this. Why is John considered more authentic than Mark? I thought Mark was the first Gospel to be written