Guys I'm getting egged on by a friend from college for my believes...

Guys I'm getting egged on by a friend from college for my believes. Every time I try to proof the reality of the Christian faith he comes up with some witty shit about the flying spaghetti monster.
What are good arguments for Christianity that cannot be countered with this bullshit?

kek. bible thumper vs fedora faggot. the cringe is probably is so real when you two argue

there are none. there's just as much proof of the latter as there is for the former. faith is your only tool, and faith cannot convince or prove

Find common ground and tell him you both get to eat your deity

>believes
>proof
is this bait? are you retarded OP?

Why would you even waste time talking to a fedora? Even if his points are solid (because they are, faith isn't verifiable or provable, that is why it is a faith) fedoras are just as subhuman as proddies

Read Betrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian". He goes thru all the arguments for God and demonstrates how weak they all are, this should save you from having your versions of these arguments trashed in public, you can move on to the only Christian argument that can't be rebutted, which is "I don't have any evidence but I have faith".

Count yourself lucky he's not using real arguments against Christainity, like the incredible levels of inconsitency even within the Gospels, nevermind the rest of the "inerrant" bible.

Yes, but Christianity is not a made up story like the fsm, so there must be a way to open his eyes.

>subhuman

watch out everyone, we've got a projecting fedora about to cut everyone with his edge

The word faith in Scripture is πίστις or Pistis, which means trust, confidence, to be persuaded. It refers NOT to belief lacking in proof, but rather to believe in the percieved on the basis of argument, indirect evidence, or a reliable authority or witness.

For example, if you see black smoke rising behind a line of trees and say "There is fire" you are exhibiting Pistis, because you are believing in an unpercieved object on the basis of an indirect proof. In this case, Pistis is a kind of deduction.

Another example would be if someone you regarded highly came up to you while you were sitting on the couch and said "There is a tiger in your front lawn". If you believed this person, you would be exhibiting Pistis.

St. Aquinas described it saying that the objects of faith could NEVER contradict natural knowledge or reason, otherwise they would not be true.

The idea that it is a divine virtue to be willfully ignorant, to ignore evidence, to choose not to understand, to believe, as it were on the basis of what you'd PREFER to be true, is so alien to the Scripture I can only call it a kind of diabolic propaganda that the churches have somehow been convinced to defend as a point of principle.

The fact that faith has turned from meaning a belief in the unperceived on the basis of argument, evidence, or testimony to instead mean belief without evidence, or even worse believe IN SPITE OF the evidence is the number one reason the churches and Christianity in general are in decline right now.

Because we have created a climate of anti-intellectualism in an age demanding argument. In a time when the Christ requires apologists we have given him songbirds and mystics. The mere fact that someone who supposedly believes in God is asking for an argument in favor of God is unbelievable to me. Why would you believe if you didn't have some strong reason to do so?

Hi constantine. Fuck any horses lately?

The flying spaghetti monster argument, which boils down to saying that you can't absolutely prove anything is false or almost anything is real, can be applied to anything he believes as well. Things can only be proved to be true or false within a given frame of reference, but that frame of reference itself can't be proved because there is no frame of reference outside it. For example I assume as a fedora he would claim to believe in science. But there is no absolute proof for the validity of the scientific method either. It relies on faith in one very particular philosophy which is rationalism, and which in in fact itself the product of Christianity.

But let's assume the truth of rationalism. Setting aside the stories of miracles and such which don't really add to it substance, the fact is the truth of the Revelation can be demonstrated rationally, which is what René Girard did. Christianity is primarily a deconstruction of paganism and an invalidation of the sacrificial thinking and mythology that permeated humanity and largely still does today. In modern rationalistic terms, Jesus reveals that there is no such thing as divine violence, and that violence is purely human, while mythology serves the purpose of disguising that fact. We are always responsible of our own violence, and from this he deduces that we will only rise to a higher plane of existence once we learn to take full responsibility for it, and then surpass it by unconditionally and unilaterally rejecting it. That last part is the one that actually requires a leap of faith.

You are so see through

You can proof, measure and recreate every single statement that science makes in reality.
You can't give a single proof or observable measurement for god in reality.

Christianity is primarily a deconstruction of paganism and an invalidation of the sacrificial thinking and mythology

Elaborate a little...esp. the deconstructing of paganism bit

>the fact is the truth of the Revelation can be demonstrated rationally
Wut?

>In modern rationalistic terms, Jesus reveals that there is no such thing as divine violence, and that violence is purely human, while mythology serves the purpose of disguising that fact.
Wut?

Russell's critiques of Christianity are incredibly weak and he seems to ignore the problems with them.
Have you never read scholastic philosophy?
The only people I've known who recommend this specific work of Russell's are philosophy 101 students that haven't dealt with serious Christianity or serious atheism.

>You can proof, measure and recreate every single statement that science makes in reality.
Oh you can? Based on what? I want you to prove to me that anything you claim to exist or happen outside yourself actually does so necessarily and undoubtedly.

Wow, this post is fucking retarded.
>>science requires faith
The computer you are typing on is not a product of a religious belief, nor can believing in something make it appear before you. Science cannot be faith because science fucking WORKS.

>>blah blah christfaggotry deconstructs paganisms or some bullshit
Oh look, more bullshit
>>actually using the term deconstruction seriously
Pretentious bullshit too.
>>Truth of revelation
looool

You're fucking stupid, go back to molesting little kids or whatever you chucklefucks do.

You both can buy hundred lottery tickets. You pray to Christ, he prays to FSM. You will win more money because Christ is real and will side with you.

What about his point about Jesus predicting the apocalypse would happen in his own generation? That Jesus and the earliest Christians excepted an imminent apocalypse has been academic consensus for a while now and utterly discredits Christianity IMO. I don't see how it's weak at all.

expected*

Have you read the bible? Ever talked to professors of theology?
There is nowhere in the bible where it says the apocalypse is happening within that generation, and any attempt at claiming this relies on faulty logic or biblical interpretation stretched to the absurd beyond any doctrines followed or believed by Christians themselves.
Do you see the biggest hole with your claim? The gospels weren't even written in the same generation as Jesus, so it's completely absurd to say that the people who wrote and compiled them believed the world would end several generations prior.

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place"
because it says so in the bible!

It's not worth having a discussion if you're going to take lines completely out of context and be unwilling to challenge your viewpoints.
Read that line in context and look at the translation.

"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour."

Oh good, completely ignore what I said and keep going
That'll sure show me that your completely unreasonable viewpoint is correct

Not the guy you're responding to, but:
>There is nowhere in the bible where it says the apocalypse is happening within that generation, and any attempt at claiming this relies on faulty logic or biblical interpretation stretched to the absurd beyond any doctrines followed or believed by Christians themselves.
Have you seriously not read 1 Thessalonians? I would direct your attention to 4:13 until the end of the chapter. A message of reassurance to a congregation about that the people who have died and "sleep in Jesus" are going to be saved as they are makes no sense unless they think the world is about to end, very, very shortly, which fits in with the rest of the language he uses.

> absurd beyond any doctrines followed or believed by Christians themselves
Are you seriously implying that the beliefs of modern Christians are the same as the beliefs of circa AD 50 Christians?

>The gospels weren't even written in the same generation as Jesus, so it's completely absurd to say that the people who wrote and compiled them believed the world would end several generations prior.
The Gospels weren't the first part of the NT to be written, the Pauline epistles were.

>The gospels weren't even written in the same generation as Jesus, so it's completely absurd to say that the people who wrote and compiled them believed the world would end several generations prior.
Paul, writing 20 years after Jesus' death expects himself to be alive at the second coming (1
Thessalonians 4:15-17)

He also recommends that people not get married, because time is short and the world in it's present form is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:25-31)

The Synoptic gospels were written in 70-80 AD, Jesus' generation hadn't completely passed away.

>the word of god doesn't fit my narrative
>boohoo you took it out of context and it is metaphorical anyways.
Christianity started as an apocalyptic sect. Deal with it!

>Have you seriously not read 1 Thessalonians?
You mean the thing written by Paul and not at all contributed to by Christ?
> makes no sense unless they think the world is about to end, very, very shortly, which fits in with the rest of the language he uses.
Again, not true, but if you want to maintain your unreasonable belief that's fine
>Are you seriously implying that the beliefs of modern Christians are the same as the beliefs of circa AD 50 Christians?
No, read my post again
>The Gospels weren't the first part of the NT to be written, the Pauline epistles were.
I don't even see what point you think you're making here
>Paul, writing 20 years after Jesus' death expects himself to be alive at the second coming
See above
>He also recommends that people not get married, because time is short and the world in it's present form is passing away
See above.
>The Synoptic gospels were written in 70-80 AD, Jesus' generation hadn't completely passed away.
That's one estimate yes, and even then that is at the very least one generation away
>Christianity started as an apocalyptic sect. Deal with it!
At least this guy doesn't put up a pretense of knowing what he's talking about

>You mean the thing written by Paul and not at all contributed to by Christ?
Moving the goalposts there user, we're talking about the "beliefs of the early Christians", not the preaching of Jesus.
>Again, not true, but if you want to maintain your unreasonable belief that's fine
Of course it's true. Come on, why would the congregation of Thessalonica be worried otherwise?
>No, read my post again
Yes, I did. You appealed to "professors of theology", and doctrines believed by Christians. Neither of those are great evidence about what circa AD 50 Christians believed, ESPECIALLY if those beliefs happened to diverge from more modern Christians, for reasons of self-interest that ought to be obvious.
>I don't even see what point you think you're making here
You claim, in post that it's absurd to think that initial Christians were apocalyptic, because the Gospels would have been written at a later date than when the world should have ended, and thus cannot be apocalpytic. This argument is undercut by the fact that the Gospels are not the oldest Christian scripture extant.

>Moving the goalposts there user, we're talking about the "beliefs of the early Christians", not the preaching of Jesus.
No, see above
>Of course it's true. Come on, why would the congregation of Thessalonica be worried otherwise?
I'm not spoonfeeding you
>Yes, I did. You appealed to "professors of theology", and doctrines believed by Christians. Neither of those are great evidence about what circa AD 50 Christians believed, ESPECIALLY if those beliefs happened to diverge from more modern Christians, for reasons of self-interest that ought to be obvious.
No, look again
>You claim, in post (You) that it's absurd to think that initial Christians were apocalyptic, because the Gospels would have been written at a later date than when the world should have ended, and thus cannot be apocalpytic. This argument is undercut by the fact that the Gospels are not the oldest Christian scripture extant.
That's not what I claim and if you were reading it reasonably you'd see that

This is absolutely pointless. I forgot how futile it is try to have any kind of discussion with people on here. It's spoonfeeding followed by intentional blindness.
Think whatever you want, hopefully you'll figure it out one day

>You mean the thing written by Paul and not at all contributed to by Christ?
Jesus is even more explicitly apocalyptic than Paul. You'll just say they're taken out of context but some of the most respected scholars in the field disagree.

>This is absolutely pointless. I forgot how futile it is try to have any kind of discussion with people on here. It's spoonfeeding followed by intentional blindness.
>Think whatever you want, hopefully you'll figure it out one day
Somehow I feel you are loosing this argument hard and retort to pointless ad hominem.
Scientific consensus by a wide margin is that the early Christians where apocalyptic and yo simply didn't bring up any arguments disproving that point. You didn't even came close.

>Feeding him (you)s.
Come on, we're dealing with a shitposter, it's pretty obvious by now.

If you read the entire chapter you'd understand that when Jesus says "...this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," he's referring to the generation living at the time of the apocalypse. Basically that the apocalyptic events will occur rapidly, within a generation.

Clearly alot of people dont agree with you. though that might be how your sect has reinterpreted that passage to explain why it didn't happen

How do you reconcile that with his other apocalyptic sayings? Some of you standing here will not taste death, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, etc.

Probably bait, fedora-man, but I'll bite.

The argument of our friend user goes beyond the realm of rationality and delves more into the philosophical; he asserts that our view of things making sense is also in essence, our perception. We have nothing to base our foundation of reality on, so how can we know if our "rational arguments" even make sense? They are a product of our minds.

Although, it does make (for our purposes) practical sense to judge things as difinitive by the way which can be proven.

In reality, science v faith cannot really be argued because they are not comparable with one another. The entire debate devolves into a philosophical versus scientific argument.

This is what happens when New Atheists use Google to look find verses that prove the Bible is wrong. The answer to your question is literally a chapter away. The transfiguration is when Jesus leads some of His disciples (Peter, James, and John) up a mountain to show them a glimpse of Heaven.

Next time, read the entire Bible before presenting arguments.

> science v faith cannot really be argued because they are not comparable with one another
This is some real bullshit right here. There is no real need for faith to be anti-religion or for religion to be anti-faith.

ask yourself what is the difference between your belief and a (genuine, hypothetical) faith in FSM.

if you can't find one then you are being made fun of because you are silly.

You that it's actual bible historians (not theologians) that say this, not random people on the internet right?

You know that it's actual bible historians (not theologians) that say this, not random people on the internet right?

Your friend sounds like an idiot incapable of visualising anything outside of the material plane. Ignore him.

>Faith isn't verifiable or proveable, that is why it is faith

Neither is delusion and that is a legitimate mental illness.

>Athiests and Jews being any better than internet randos
Good one, my banana tipping friend.

What about working at a job you don't like to buy things you don't want to impress people you don't care about, is that sane?

underrated post

>The only choices are empty materialism or willful delusion

False dichotomy. Nor does it answer the original criticism.

If faith is inherently unproveable, what makes it different from delusion?

And before you strawman any harder, Im not against religion. It has its uses in leading a fulfilling life. I take issue with the usage and definition of the word faith, as it's been started by religious people.

>deduction

You mean induction. I.e. Bullshit

Ramen brother!