Arguments against Christianity, for the ‘forgetful’

Posted on by

Today Mung claimed of TSZ that

I see mocking of Christianity, what I don’t see are arguments that Christianity is false.

As the regulars here (including Mung) know, this is bollocks. There have been many such arguments, and Mung has fled from a number of them.

I replied:

You see plenty of them [arguments against Christianity], but you’re in denial.

Want to test that hypothesis? Start a thread asking for arguments against Christianity. You’ll get an earful.

He got cold feet, so I am starting the thread for him. I’ll provide some arguments in the comments. Feel free to add your own or to cross-post or link to old OPs and comments, if you can’t be arsed to reinvent the wheel for Mung’s trollish sake.

Mung’s fellow Christians are welcome to come to his aid. He’ll need all the help he can get.

534 thoughts on “Arguments against Christianity, for the ‘forgetful’”

  1. If Christianity is true then presumably all other religions are false. Do you have evidence of that Mung? Why is Islam false?

  2. Mung,
    When you say:

    I believe Jesus existed.

    Do you also believe that he did all the miraculous things ascribed to him? As well as just ‘existing’?

  3. OMagain:
    If Christianity is true then presumably all other religions are false. Do you have evidence of that Mung? Why is Islam false?

    I wouldn’t put it quite that way.

    What I would say is that Christianity has exactly the same kind of evidence as other revealed religions. Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc.
    I see no way to reconcile conflicts between revelations.

  4. There’s no evidence Adam and Eve ever existed. There was no original sin. No need for a sacrifice to forgive us.

    Done, case closed.

  5. Rumraket:
    There’s no evidence Adam and Eve ever existed. There was no original sin. No need for a sacrifice to forgive us.
    Done, case closed.

    The idea of inherited sin is shockingly stupid. If the propensity to sin is innate, it’s a design flaw.

  8. He made you in such a way that you have to commit the crime, then you have to beg him not to torture you for committing the crime.

    Nice eternal soul you got here, be a shame if something happened to it….

  9. petrushka: I wouldn’t put it quite that way.

    What I would say is that Christianity has exactly the same kind of evidence as other revealed religions. Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc.
    I see no way to reconcile conflicts between revelations.

    Hey, at least I know L. Ron’s last name. Can’t say that about “John” “mark” “luke” “darryl” or whoever.

  10. OMagain: Why is Islam false?

    Because Islam tells Christians to judge it be the Bible and it clearly contradicts the Bible.

    peace

  11. OMagain:
    If Christianity is true then presumably all other religions are false. Do you have evidence of that Mung? Why is Islam false?

    Something you can realize early is, most of the christians around you are christians because they grew up surrounded by christians. If the same people had been born in a muslim environment, they’d be muslim. If they’d grown up in a hindu environment, they’d be hindu. If they’d grown up in a jewish environment, they’d be atheists. 😀 This person down the street who’s angry about how catholics aren’t real christians, if he’d been born in Cook County IL, he’d be a catholic. So religious beliefs are arbitrary and provincial.

  12. OMagain: Do you also believe that he did all the miraculous things ascribed to him?

    I don’t believe that he miraculously appeared in the Americas to establish a religion among the descendants of Israelites living there as described by the book of Mormon.

    I don’t believe this because there is no archeological evidence for the truth of anything whatsoever in the book of Mormon (and because the book of Mormon contradicts the Bible)

    peace

  13. If Kairosfocus had been born in Pakistan he’d be ranting about infidels with a dent in his forehead from banging it into the ground praying.

  15. AhmedKiaan: Something you can realize early is, most of the christians around you are christians because they grew up surrounded by christians.

    So, most people in the USA like representative democracy because that is the system they grew up with.

    That does not mean that all governing systems are equally good or useful.

    peace

  22. Of course nothing in any of those OPs has any bearing on the truth of Christianity, because as Mung tells us, there are no arguments against Christianity at TSZ.

    And who would doubt Mung?.

  27. fifthmonarchyman: Because Islam tells Christians to judge it be the Bible and it clearly contradicts the Bible.

    peace

    Already demonstrated this is false. But hey…at least that “Christian morality” is on display once again…

  28. What a letdown.

    The OP doesn’t even tackle what it means to say that Christianity is false. Wouldn’t that be the place to start? I even pointed keiths in the right direction.

    Here and here.

    I also expected an actual argument or two. Instead we get spammed with links. If they are like the usual fare from keiths they are void of actual arguments.

    Let me tell you here I think this is going. keiths isn’t actually arguing that Christianity is false, he’s arguing that it’s been argued that Christianity is false. So now he’s shifting the burden to me to sift through his threads to find the actual arguments. I’m not inclined to do that.

    What I was hoping for was that he would actually make an argument in this thread about why Christianity is false. So far I don’t see it.

    What a letdown.

  29. OMagain: If Christianity is true then presumably all other religions are false. Do you have evidence of that Mung? Why is Islam false?

    Is this supposed to be an argument that Christianity is false? Because I don’t see that following from anything you wrote.

    I acknowledge that people can question the truth of Christianity. Does it follow that they have made an argument that Christianity is false? I don’t think so.

  30. OMagain: Do you also believe that he did all the miraculous things ascribed to him? As well as just ‘existing’?

    Maybe keiths thinks your questions constitute an argument that Christianity is false, but I don’t. Is this how this thread is going to go, lol?

  32. Neil Rickert: Mung is going to see this as more mocking of Christianity, with no actual attempt to disprove.

    So far I have not seen any mocking of Christians or Christianity in this thread. But I also think I’ve only spotted one post that even comes close to being an actual argument.

    ETA: I spoke a moment too soon. Way to go Robin!

  33. Just for the record, I have no idea what “Christianity is false” or “Christianity is true” is even supposed to mean. Likewise for substituting “Christianity” with “Judaism,” “Islam,” “Hinduism,” etc.

  34. Kantian Naturalist: Just for the record, I have no idea what “Christianity is false” or “Christianity is true” is even supposed to mean. Likewise for substituting “Christianity” with “Judaism,” “Islam,” “Hinduism,” etc.

    Thank you. I specifically asked keiths to address that concern in his OP, but alas.

    Mung: Be sure to address what it even means to say that Christianity is false.

  35. Rumraket: There’s no evidence Adam and Eve ever existed. There was no original sin. No need for a sacrifice to forgive us.

    Congratulations Rumraket. I think this is the closest anyone has come so far in this thread to actually making an argument. [I have some people on Ignore though, so who knows. Maybe there are some I haven’t seen.]

  36. Kantian Naturalist:
    Just for the record, I have no idea what “Christianity is false” or “Christianity is true” is even supposed to mean. Likewise for substituting “Christianity” with “Judaism,” “Islam,” “Hinduism,” etc.

    How about “theism”, “atheism”, “agnosticism” etc?

  37. Erik: How about “theism”, “atheism”, “agnosticism” etc?

    I have a a pretty good handle on what’s being claimed when one says that theism or atheism is true or false. Theism and atheism involve assertions. Theism is the assertion that God exists, and atheism is the assertion that God does not exist. So the assertion “atheism is false” is just a denial of the assertion that God doesn’t exist, the assertion “theism is true” is an endorsement of the assertion that God does exist, etc.

    But Christianity is not an assertion, nor even a group of assertions. It is a way of life that involves rituals, prayers, required actions, prohibited actions, places of worship, institutionalized sources of authority, schools of textual interpretation, etc. It’s far more than an assertion about what does or does not exist.

    For that matter, it’s not even clear to me that creeds (such as reciting the Nicene Creed) function pragmatically as assertions in the way that “the earth revolves around the sun” is an assertion.

  38. AhmedKiaan:
    Nice eternal soul you got here, be a shame if something happened to it….

    Thugs create gods in their own image. The social state of the Middle East today suggests little has changed.

  39. Kantian Naturalist: I have a a pretty good handle on what’s being claimed when one says that theism or atheism is true or false. Theism and atheism involve assertions. Theism is the assertion that God exists, and atheism is the assertion that God does not exist. So the assertion “atheism is false” is just a denial of the assertion that God doesn’t exist, the assertion “theism is true” is an endorsement of the assertion that God does exist, etc.

    But Christianity is not an assertion, nor even a group of assertions. It is a way of life that involves rituals, prayers, required actions, prohibited actions, places of worship, institutionalized sources of authority, schools of textual interpretation, etc. It’s far more than an assertion about what does or does not exist.

    For that matter, it’s not even clear to me that creeds (such as reciting the Nicene Creed) function pragmatically as assertions in the way that “the earth revolves around the sun” is an assertion.

    I tend to assume that when someone makes a rather general statement like, “Christianity is false” without any elaboration, what that person is actually trying to say is something along the lines of, “imo, the foundational premises (or at least some of them) of Christianity – the concept of The Trinity, that mankind needs some forgiveness for all of our supposed “sins”, that sin entered the world through the disobedience of two original humans, that God incarnated Himself as a human (through some consummation with a human woman no less) to then be the sacrificial lamb for humanity, that said human form was killed and then raised from the dead, and so on – are false”.

  40. There has been a lot of arguments against Christian apologetics here, not so many against Christianity per se. For one thing, “Christianity” is a rather amorphous and uncertain target, and as such certainly doesn’t have much positive argument for it. It’s when you get all of the little “proofs” and “science” that supposedly supports this or that version of Christianity that there’s even anything to discuss.

    The point is that we’re really waiting for Christianity to come up with the first persuasive argument for itself. At the present, sure there’s apologetics to aim at, but taking down ID or the like isn’t so much anti-Christian as it is defending good thinking.

    Glen Davidson

  41. Robin,

    I tend to assume that when someone makes a rather general statement like, “Christianity is false” without any elaboration, what that person is actually trying to say is something along the lines of, “imo, the foundational premises (or at least some of them) of Christianity – the concept of The Trinity, that mankind needs some forgiveness for all of our supposed “sins”, that sin entered the world through the disobedience of two original humans, that God incarnated Himself as a human (through some consummation with a human woman no less) to then be the sacrificial lamb for humanity, that said human form was killed and then raised from the dead, and so on – are false”.

    I think this is right. The fundamental basis of Christianity is around the miracles, resurrection, ascension and persistence of the apostles after the ascension. The divinity of Christ separates Christianity from other religions. In addition it is also based on the brilliance of Christ’s teachings, especially the concept of grace.

  45. Mung: Congratulations Rumraket. I think this is the closest anyone has come so far in this thread to actually making an argument

    I do concede I didn’t even state it in the form of an actual argument, but I think you get the point. To be honest, I find the whole idea about “disproving christianity” to be a waste of my time. Christianity isn’t true by default, the null hypothesis is that no particular hypothesis is to be believed until it has met it’s burden of proof (meaning until the evidence in favor of it, out-weighs the evidence against it).

    That would mean one would not have accepted any position (yes, including the position that there is no God, or that christianity is false) until evidence and arguments have been presented that should persuade a person in a particular direction.

    I do believe I can offer arguments (not that they’re my own) against the existence of the Christian God, but they’re mostly arguments against general theistic tri-omni Gods (so they would apply to most denominations of Christianity, Islam and Judaism). I happen to like the Evidential argument from Divine Hiddenness:

    The General Fact of Divine Hiddenness (aka Reasonable Nonbelief)
    Informal Statement of the Argument
    There are many people, including myself, who don’t believe in God but who wish that some sort of a theistic God did exist. Now the Apostle Paul, in Romans 1:19-21, implies that the existence of God is just obvious to everyone, even atheists and agnostics. But just think about that for a second. How do you prove that something is obvious to another person? Lots of nonbelievers claim that the existence of God is not obvious to them. Indeed, many nonbelievers claim that it is just obvious that it is not obvious that theism is true! Why is this evidence for atheism over theism? Because if theism is true, we would expect nonbelief in God to be unreasonable. What possible reason could God, if He existed, have for not revealing Himself? God is not shy, God is not busy, and so forth. But if atheism is true, there is no God and we would expect nonbelief to be reasonable. Therefore, reasonable nonbelief is more likely on atheism than on theism.

    Formal Statement of the Argument
    (1) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God is also (iii) in a position to participate in such relationship (able to do so just by trying).
    (2) Necessarily, one is at a time in a position to participate in meaningful conscious relationship with God only if at that time one believes that God exists.
    (3) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God also (iii) believes that God exists.
    (4) There are (and often have been) people who are (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God without also (iii) believing that God exists.
    (5) God does not exist.

    … more

  46. Mung: Do the links posted by keiths work for anyone but keiths?

    I didn’t click on any of them, because I wasn’t particularly interested.

    Not clicking worked perfectly.

  47. Neil Rickert: Mung is going to see this as more mocking of Christianity, with no actual attempt to disprove.

    “Disprove” is an inappropriate word. Perhaps it would be better to cite reasons for not believing.

    There are lots of silly things taken seriously by many people that I do not believe. Christianity is just one of many.

  48. Rumraket:

    I do believe I can offer arguments (not that they’re my own) against the existence of the Christian God, but they’re mostly arguments against general theistic tri-omni Gods (so they would apply to most denominations of Christianity, Islam and Judaism). I happen to like the Evidential argument from Divine Hiddenness:

    Yes, that’s a good (and important) one. My favorite is the Problem of Evil, which also applies generally to omniGods and not just to Christianity.

    I do concede I didn’t even state it in the form of an actual argument, but I think you get the point.

    Intelligent folks are able to connect the dots. Mung struggles, and so you have to make things super-explicit for him.

  49. Neil,

    I’m not sure what’s the point of this thread.

    To present arguments against Christianity.

    Mung is going to see this as more mocking of Christianity, with no actual attempt to disprove.

    Mung might pretend to see it merely as mockery, in order to save face, but in fact he will be unable to defend Christianity against some crucial criticisms.

Leave a Reply