The best argument against Christianity is simply actually sitting down and reading this book

The old testament is trash.
Throw out old wineskins.
Check out the Gospel only.
Pure word of God right there, man.
No contradictions out of Jesus's mouth. Perfect and holy.

>the old testament is trash
you're not Christian right

I actually larp as Christian but I see a lot Christians on here have solid arguments for their faith and they are basically onto something

Scholasticism has been an object of derision for every serious philosopher from Hobbes to Kant

I already know aquinas' arguments but thanks for giving everyone an example of exactly what I meant.
I've yet to see one answer objections to their arguments that are made by atheist philosophers rather than imbecile new atheists.

You definitely don't know what you are talking about. Kant took it very seriously and tried to refute the famous ontological argument, which he failed, and the argument still goes by even today, completely undefeated. Aquinas tried to prove it wrong too, and he is part of Scholasticism himself.

Talking about Aquinas, that guy is probably the greatest philosopher ever. He managed to complement Aristotle's work really well.

Also, Kant himself was Christian.

I want to [spolier]marry[/spoiler] Christ-chan

Try me, I'm a capable Christian

>inb4 epicurus paradox

Oh and by the way

>I already know Aquinas' arguments
Bullshit, you need to read dozens upon dozens of authors (at least all of Aristotle and Plato) before you start reading Aquinas' magnum opus, the summa theologica. You do not know his arguments, or maybe you read it from some blog written by a guy that did not read it either, which means you still don't know his arguments.

Aquinas supposedly proved God's existence rationally. Many atheist philosophers were converted by reading the summa theologica. I really doubt a random neet can "know his arguments" and remain a non-believer.

Oh I am very Christian. I just don't believe in fairy tales or the traditions of men for fun's sake.

>which he failed
That's where you're wrong, Feser fanboy.

I know Kant was a Christian, so was Hobbes. That doesn't mean they didn't shit on Scholasticism. Kant uses phrases like "subtle sophism of the schools" to describe the ontological argument, referring to its basis in exactly that discipline.

Kant did not even reply to Anselm's ontological argument. Instead, he replied to Descartes', which is quite shittier.

Aquinas replies to Anselm, but misses the point.

It is still untouched.

>Bullshit, you need to read dozens upon dozens of authors
No you dont' need dozens, you don't even need half a dozen.
>Bullshit
Yes, presuming to know someone else's mind is really top-tier argumentation.
I love how the rest of your argument is literally just "if you knew them you wouldn't be an atheist". Do I have to point out why it's shit or can you figure it out by yourself?

Just answer this: Did you read the summa theologica?

Kant's aesthetic theory can be used as an underhanded argument for God.
Beauty is the harmonious freeplay of intuition and understanding, blah blah, but more importantly it is the pleasure of purposeless purposiveness. Kant said it was purposeless because the purpose could not be rationalized, but clearly meant that if our minds were keen enough we could perceive natural beauty as it is truly meant to be recognized. As a grand argument for the existence of this purpose and what it is.

In order to "try" you, you first have to give me argument.
Epicurus problem of evil, which no serious atheist philosophers consider an argument worth making, is an example of an atheistic argument. I was talking about atheistic objections to theistic arguments.
I mean, we can still do it that way if you prefer: how do you defeat the evidential problem of evil without appealing to extremely shaky epistemological theories?

chriatianity is actually existing autism

If I ask you to describe the meaningful difference between the two, I'm sure you'll start screeching that I haven't read either, but for my part, I cannot find it. Even the cosmological argument is just the ontological argument with a merely logical definition of causality included in it

Just answer this: have you read any book or article by atheist philosophers of religion?
And by the way, no, I haven't read all of it, because most of it has nothing to do with making arguments for God's existence. I read the relevant parts to that topic.

I don't like giving arguments because I think God is ultimately about faith. Reason can and will lead to God, but if you don't believe in God you will be blind to reason if you don't have faith.

I also don't believe in dishing unnecessary arguments when you already have one that works, so I'd give you the ontological argument and ask you to answer that.

>how do you defeat the evidential problem of evil without appealing to extremely shaky epistemological theories?
Free will to stray further from God. Asking why evil exists is like asking why darkness exists. I can't develop on this without you developing your argument since "the problem of evil" is quite broad.

>I don't like giving arguments because I think God is ultimately about faith
No shit? So I have to give arguments for my position but you don't have to do it for yours?
>I can't develop on this without you developing your argument since "the problem of evil" is quite broad.
I didn't say "the problem of evil", I said the evidential problem of evil.

Descartes claims that claiming God exists is like claiming a triangle has three sides, and Kant rabbles about how "existing" is not a property like the number of sides on geometry. He completely misses the point, and it's not part of the original argument anyway.

Aquinas gets closer. He attacks the very foundation which is the human ability of imagining God. The funny part is that for his argument to work you need to believe in God in the first step.

What "relevant parts" did you read?

And no. The closest I came to that was Pondé. He said that noticing the inexistence of God is the "simplest task ever, all you need to do is realize that the world around you is imperfect". Then he goes on about how believing is much harder, but also a much more sophisticated option, and that he deeply loves Christianity and Scholasticism and admires how complex it is and how rich its contribution is to Western society. Then he rambles about how stupid atheists are for trying to destroying that. You almost start thinking he is Christian, but then he insists he is an atheist, just a smart one. He calls himself a "non-practicing atheist" to differentiate himself from the ones like you or your authors.

>rabbles about how christians don't answer his arguments
>I answer it
>he rabbles about how I implied I don't need to answer it while ignoring my answer
I guess I expected too much from fedora tipping faggots

>What "relevant parts" did you read?
I don't remember the names of the sections if that's what you're asking, I read the section of the first book where he deals with what god is and how it can be known he exists.
>And no
So what I was saying in the beginning is true. Christians on here pretend knowledge but they don't actually know shit about the subject. How the hell can you know that something hasn't been answered or refuted if you haven't read anything on the topic by the people who are supposed to refute your hypothesis?
This is just incredible.

I didn't ignore it, you ignoramus, "free will" is an objection to the logical problem of evil, not the evidential. I charitably assumed you had misread what I wrote because unironically using the free will defense to address the evidential problem of evil means you don't even know what the latter is.

>in order to be Christian you need to read at least 50 fedora tipping shit books
No thank you

Christians are probably ignoring you for a variety of reasons:
a) They simply don't have the knowledge and want to live their simple lives
b) They have the knowledge but follow the Bible on not giving away pearls to dogs who will just stomp on them and then eat these who gave them away
c) They know that it's pointless to discuss rationally if the answer can only be grasped through faith, and know that the rational job was already done by Scholars anyway

Why someone would even become an "atheist philosopher" is beyond me too. If you have two neurons to rub together you'll notice that Christianity is not bad for society, it is actually quite good and necessary to counter the evils that currently attempt to overtake it. No idea why some people dedicate their lives to destroying it, but just be aware that you are not the first one to attempt that, it is an old game that people have been playing it's been more than 2000 years, and it is a game they always fail at.

Not him but I really enjoyed your posts m8. Thanks.

Also:
>refute this: Argument
>what? you don't know what Argument is? haha idiot you are not on my level to debate

This is so pathetic and arrogant, only a fedora tipper could do that. If you did not know the ontological argument I'd happily explain it to you. It takes a great lack of humility to just insult someone because they do not know the special snowflake argument you pointed. I probably know several arguments you don't know, that's not anything to boast about. At one point you'll debate with someone much smarter than you, who will know arguments you don't know, and they probably won't claim victory just because they found one you did not know

>Kant rabbles about how "existing" is not a property like the number of sides on geometry

This is not his contention at all; he states explicitly that existing *is* a property like the sides of a triangle. It's a matter of what this property has reference to. Kant's point is that the triangle itself is not real, and that the supposition of its three-sidedness holds good only when we apply it to empirical conceptions, intuitions, or perceptions that relate back to the notion of a triangle. Otherwise, e.g. if we have for instance a circle, to posit the necessary use of the triangular mode is pointless, regardless of whether or not the things that follow from the premises of a given triangle hold good of themselves (i.e. generally speaking, without reference to the particular problem). It is the same with God; if we posit that he is the being "than which no greater can be conceived," then it follows from this in a purely logical way that he must exist. But this refers only to the notion of existence, not to the existence of any object in the world, since God is given himself as an idea -- and his existence as an object in the sensuous world was precisely what was to be proved. The argument, in the words of Kant, "shows itself to be a miserable tautology." It doesn't really matter whose iteration we're talking about, they all rely on the same fundamental idea of God as the Being of all Beings.

The efficient cause argument and contingency argument ring true.

Big Bang as counter-argument : What if one supposes that God does exist? Then there would be a time beyond time preceding our universal time.

Self-existence of universe as counter-argument : What makes a universe self-existent if it does not possess within itself (abstractly or informationally) the reason for it's own existence. It would appear Reality itself comes before the universe in it's abstraction as an underlying unity of substance, and that this Reality must be God.

>in order to be Christian you need to read at least 50 fedora tipping shit books
But that's not what I said, your reading comprehension skills are even worse than your knowledge of the subject. I said that people on here pretend that Christianity has all these great arguments and atheism has none while instead your knowledge of the subject is very small and extremely partial, as both of you have admitted either explicitly or implicitly.
>Christians are probably ignoring you
Christians have been replying to me all throughout this thread so I don't even know what you're on about. Again, how can you know that the rational job was done by scholars if you don't even know what the other side says? You don't.
>Why someone would even become an "atheist philosopher" is beyond me too
Of course, since you seem to be a zealot. Normal people understand that people become an X philosopher (moral realist, coherentist, whatever-ist) is if they think that X is true and it's part of an interesting subject of study. So you have people who are interested in philosophy of religion and who think atheism is the correct answer, and that's how you get atheist philosophers of religion.

>takes a great lack of humility to just insult someone because they do not know the special snowflake argument you pointed
Except a) I only replied to your insult, I wasn't the first to throw around insults and b) it's not a special snowflake argument, it's literally one of the most well known contemporary arguments against the existence of god.

What's so pathetic and arrogant is you people who keep shitting up the board parading around with a "we actually have the good arguments" attitude without even knowing what the other side says.

Huh? I am completely sure Kant denies that existence is a property of an object on the same way of the sides of a triangle. For example: You can imagine some geometric form and then attach the concept of three sides to it, thus imagining a triangle, but you can't imagine God and then "attach existence to Him". Instead, existence is something that can be proved by observing reality. That's why God's existence is something that has to be proved for Kant, and proof that can't be determined from that argument alone, since existing or being is not a predicate.

But Anselm's argument is not about adding the idea of "existing" to "God" like you add "three sides" to a "triangle". In fact, even if we assume Kant is right, Anselm's argument is still untouched, since it is much more related to the correlation between the existence of God as an idea and the existence of God in reality.

Does anyone even consider Kant's objection valid to Anselm anyway? I thought it was agreed upon he answered the wrong guy.

No one here claimed atheism has no arguments.

Let's remember how this started: You complained about how no Christians ever answer your arguments. I wasted my time offering to answer them. You named the "evidential problem of evil", I mistook it for the "logical problem of evil", you laughed at how retarded I looked, and now we're having this discussion that is just you jerking yourself off about how smart you are and how dumb Christians are.

Let's put it this way: I know some atheist arguments, but not all, and you know some Christian arguments, but certainly not all, and if you actually wanted to discuss you'd probably actually develop your arguments instead of pointing one and then jerking off to people not instantly recognizing it. And when I questioned why atheist philosophers exist, I was not doubting their interest on the subject. As I said, Pondé is a great philosopher, and also an atheist who thoroughly studied Scholastic, and he claims that trying to destroy Christianity is foolish and would just bring doom upon western society, so he avoids doing that. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise, unless it's just some blind chase for what they think is the "truth", which is funny coming from secularists but I can understand that

No, faith is the opposite of reason. Like morality is meant to do for actions, reason prescribes what to believe. Faith is giving up and believing what feels good. Giving into lower human nature and bias and denial and ego stroking.

Existence is a necessary property of all objects, conceptually speaking, just as all triangles necessarily have three sides.

If existence were not a logical, abstract property in the way a line is, the argument would not be tautological, it would simply be contradictory, because the predicate (exists) would annihilate a necessary part of the subject (the idea of God), and so no conception at all could be formed (by the definition of contradiction). In other words, if the idea of existence could not be imagined of or "attached to" God, saying "God exists" would be like saying "Nothing exists." But, again, this is not Kant's contention. Existence can very easily be attached to God, but this attachment is of a purely formal and necessary character, like the attachment of the conception of one hundred and eighty degrees to that of the interior angles of a triangle.

Do you like frogs? You trolls all seem to have the same style and tactics.

Your argument is nice but are you sure that is Kant's position? If existence is a property, then it is a predicate, but Kant really enforces that existence is not a predicate. Even if it is not Kant's position, it seems valid.

>troll

Come on OP, the OT is the best part. Just enjoy the Veeky Forums of the whole thing. The Judgement of Solomon is so damn good.

t. agnostic

>You complained about how no Christians ever answer your arguments.
No, I didn't complain, I matter-of-factly said to OP that he shouldn't expect actualy meaningful replies because that's not what christians do here.
>mistook it for the "logical problem of evil", you laughed at how retarded I looked,
Except that's not what happened either, I charitably corrected you and you replied by saying I'm a "fedora tipping faggot". Only at that point I proceeded to insult you. I mean, why lie about what just happened? You can literally read it a few posts above this one.
>you'd probably actually develop your arguments instead of pointing one
I didn't point one and that's it, I asked you a question, which I'll ask again. How do you refute the evidential problem of evil without resorting to shaky epistemological theories? Do you want to answer that question or not? I mean, you don't want to make arguments for theism, you don't want to read arguments against theism made by academics, you apparently don't want to answer questions on the topic, so what the hell am I supposed to do?
>which is funny coming from secularists
I'm not a secularist.

>Faith is giving up and believing what feels good.
Doesn't explain why Abraham tried to kill Issac; that wasn't a feel good moment. Have you ever read Kierkegaard? (Not a believer btw, I just like theology)

The best argument against it, it is that it's a shitty religion for sheep based around a figure whose good teachings most Christians don't even follow. They rather worship idols in their fancy churches and celebrate holidays as if that's what their ascetic savior wanted. A joke attempt at spirituallity.

Kant is unfortunately guilty of the same "subtlety" (opacity) which he demeans in Scholasticism, but in his case the fogginess of expression doesn't obfuscate a fallacy. At the outset of his criticism of the cosmological argument, he distinguishes between logical and real predicates. So, when he says, "being is evidently not a real predicate," his meaning is, that it is a logical one, not that "being" is not at all a predicate.

I simply don't know the argument, what else do you want from me? I already googled it, read about it then googled refutations, I have like four right now, including the "shaky epistemological theories" that you mentioned. I'm not willing to present these for simple reasons:

a) Considering how easy it is to find these arguments, you probably already know them;
b) I hate presenting arguments that I don't fully grasp about subjects I don't grasp, I'd rather fully study the subject and read about it before trying to debate about it

Be a little charitable. I didn't say they believe whatever feels best at any moment.
On the contrary, that shows how strongly he resisted giving up his dream of god and heaven. To do such an immoral thing rather than face the lack of evidence or compelling reason for his religion.

>cosmological
Sorry, meant ontological. It's getting rather early over here in Burgerland

I stand corrected and I learned a lot, thanks

>I simply don't know the argument, what else do you want from me?
Nothing, but you seemed to want something from me and I've no idea what it is.

>muh scholasticism
>mfw

Hume has a very poor understanding of aristotle desu.

Thank you. I enjoyed this discussion immensely.

It's funny how far he got for someone that doesn't understand Aristotle. I've also seen other philosophers get far without understanding him, I really don't get how that happens

I'm not saying Aristotle is basic, quite the contrary, he's just way too essential and core to do anything without him

And Aristotle had a very poor understanding of almost everything he wrote about

...

Why does no one here ever talk about how utterly BTFO Christianity has been by archaeology and historical criticism. You always just go straight to arguing about whether God exists or not.

The Old Testament and the story of Israel basically being fiction, Jesus essentially being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, preaching nothing close to the Christian orthodoxy, etc. Both of these have long been the standard views in academia.

>It's funny how far he got for someone that doesn't understand Aristotle
Not really, lots of literature and philosophy gets created out of misunderstanding the people you're supposedly refuting/citing.
But not of Aristotelian thought. Which you kinda have to know well if you're trying to refute something that is based on it.

Muh faith so that doesn't count

The bible unearthed is a pretty good book on that topic.

Well, no, I don't think you've read the story. God tells Abraham that his son will be a great King, and Abraham is an old man with only one son. So when God tells Abraham to kill his only son, Abraham has to have enough faith to believe God even if the statements are contradictory. It wasn't "Kill your son to go to heaven", it was "Kill your son so your son may become King". I'd really recommend Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling.

We don't even have 10% of what Aristotle wrote.

For every historian criticizing the Bible, there are three others to defend it, there is no consensus, you people sound like these folk saying "this is what Science says", there is no consensus on these fields

This but unironically.

I've also seen people question why God would do that. It is interesting to notice how Isaac is a huge metaphor for Jesus, as if he mimicked all the events that would happen in the future.

I stopped believing in people refuting Aristotle after my philosophy teacher said that "the problem with Aristotle is that he supports slavery"

That story was written at least two millennia before Jesus was born, it was certainly not a metaphor desu.

Including the "Old Testament" within the Christian canon was a mistake. Just read Homer, Plato, the book of Proverbs and some expository literature on 1st century Hellenistic Judaism, and then jump straight into the New Testament.

The Old Testament deals with the mythologised ethnogenesis of the Jews, and as such is of no interest to you. Nor should it be.

Can we talk about how the new testament has been corrupted by Paul and co?
The Judas story does not make sense and was invented later to slander him. For two thousand years he has been hated and accredited with the most despicable deed of all. We must beg for Judas' forgiveness at this point.

It's not just that particular story, but rather Isaac's entire life, it is all parallel to Jesus' life. The particular moment of the sacrifice symbolizes God sacrificing his only son, Jesus. This is used as proof for the Bible's timeless writing. You can alternatively claim that Jesus mimicked Isaac's life but we both know how nonsense that is.

>there is no consensus, you people sound like these folk saying "this is what Science says", there is no consensus on these fields

Right, because there totally is in theology and religion

>david and goliath.
The Jewish equivalent of stories like Heracles'. See also Samson etc. Again, it's safe to ignore the Old testament entirely, apart from the "Wisdom" books (Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Job) since those are the only ones truly relevant to Christianity.

The rest is mythology. You can just as well read the Eddas.

You totally missed my point

You didn't even get to Numbers 31:17-18 desu

Old Testament is was more Veeky Forums than New Testament. NT is one shit story four times over and a handful of letters Paul couldn't even bother but template like mad-libs. Pretty lame desu, and like a quarter the length. Reads like fan fic, 2/10.

>For every historian criticizing the Bible, there are three others to defend it,
Not really, there are no mainstream archeologists who study the bible that actually believe the exodus happened, jews were slaves in egypt and so on.

Found the moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. The "Scholastics" were what you'd today call an "academic". They dealt with a whole lot more than theology. Maybe you should read some philosophy before spouting this sort of retarded nonsense.

>Hobbes, Kant
They're pseuds. Stick to the Greeks.

>The "Scholastics" were what you'd today call an "academic"
Not him but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>one massive appeal to authority
Nice.
By the way, I am a Christian. But the Christians on this site really are retarded.

Hume has a poor understanding of everything. He's one of the biggest jokes of the Enlightenment. He sports literally pre-Socratic levels of confused retardation.

>erroneously pointing appeal to authority on what really isn't that on Veeky Forums, a board where that is actually acceptable if your authority is legit enough

>one shit story four times over
Found the pseud. (The synoptic gospels are apocryphal, and they're very different from John's.)

Trying to become a Christian made me hate Christians because they've got cognitive dissonance out the ass and are really just passive aggressive Muslims in terms of disposition.

It's true. They were "professional" "philosophers" working in universities in a very bureaucratic manner. Literally the whole of modern academic practice has its origin with the "Scholastics".

I recommend reading the second volume of Anthony Kenny's History of Western Philosophy, so you at least have a clue of what you're talking about before laughing like a retard.

I know how they worked. And that's because the Catholic Church created the first few universities. These priests and saints are primarily that, priests and saints, and only secondly "professional philosophers" as you say. Today's academics are morons and entitled atheists, Aquinas would never be one if he was born today.

> the second volume of Anthony Kenny's History of Western Philosophy
Or any other equivalent that offers some exposition of the historical Scholastics, not the stupid memes you see thrown around on Veeky Forums (and elsewhere) both by the detractors and the muh Aquinas apologists.

>I know how they worked.
You clearly don't.

>at least I found my loophole. I assume that God, for whatever reason, has hardened my heart like that one Pharoah, because if I don't believe in him, it's obviously god's will.
But user, that story shows that even if God is the one who hardens your heart he'll still wreck your shit.

Wrong. That isn't an argument against Christianity
>hurr durr i dont understand SO ITS FUCKIN DUMB
ME SMART 2500 YEARS OF SCHOLARS DUMB

>atheist philosophers
No such thing exists
Shite from heretic.org or whatever is not 'atheist philosophy. It's shite.

>atheist philosophers of religion
hurr durr muh positivism

>reason is good becuz i lieg it

>2500 YEARS OF SCHOLARS DUMB
Literally yes. I used to believe this meme that there must be SOME deep insights in all the hundreds of years of Christians analyzing the Bible until I read the Haydock Bible. is right to assume that the mental gymnastics necessary to make the Bible into something compatible with Christian philosophy are astonishing. It just goes to show the difference between quantity of writing and quality.

hurr durr muh raisin is good becuz i sed so i cannot defend this in any way but its troo despite the original arguments which i depend on all defer to a deistic god which i reject making my point literally at most an appeal to evolution which is not orderly as assumed and merely pragmatic and corresponding making reason just 'reliable' not 'absolute'

I'm fucking waiting.
inb4
>hurr durr u use rasin
THAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM IMPLYING IT TO BE ANYTHING BUT RELIABLE
YOU ARE THE PLATONIST HERE
Hume is a satirist who never meant a single thing he wrote.

Go back to plebbit