Hey guys, I'm new on this site. I have a lot of arguementative christians in my life. I am looking for your best, strongest arguements against god and christianity. Any thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Prove it"!
They cannot and will never prove their god or gods.
What then would i say when considering that not only can their god not be disproven, but also that all scientific answers to the same questions are theories that also cannot be proven.
If they come back with that lie for an answer they are not worth the trouble.
Strictly speaking, you can't disprove Santa Claus. Unless you are doing math (or some logical equivalent) you are not dealing with absolute proof. You are dealing with argument credibility. Thus, the question that needs to be asked is whether there is any compelling evidence for God. The answer is clearly 'no' since many bright theologians openly admit that there is no proof of God, that he must be taken on faith. They would hardly pass up any easy proofs! Many arguments against God are powerful and lack any compelling defense. Theologians can pry open loopholes (as can be done for any argument), but these rebuttals are contorted and often impart odd, unexplainable agendas to God. The natural answers, free of such contortions, point to atheism. For example, apologists stumble all over themselves trying to "explain" the hide-and-seek god and the god who has allowed evil into the world. We get into elaborate free will arguments, but on closer examination they either fail outright or become unnaturally contorted.
A rational argument against God (and all supernatural gods) may be found on my thread "Science Gives God The Bump!" 08/07/2016 18:47.
Well you might start with the fact that we have a huge number of religious claims; most of which are inconsistent with Christianity (if not each other). Why should someone choose the god of the Jews over Marawa the spider-god of Melanesia?
You have identified yourself as a xtian so what is your purpose in asksing this?
Answered prophesy and eyewitness testimony for Christianity, but that aguement doesnt go to the core of what was being discussed, whether or not God exists. Is there no really strong arguement here?
Lots of religions claim to have that.
I identify as atheist. There is a huge difference between believing and knowing. So far, no one has offered any substantive proof that any gods exist. Unless that happens, I hold no belief that any gods exist but am unable to know if any of them actually does or not.
And comment before that, my best friend since the third grade has always been a Christian. He quit his job at cintas to work for some apoligetics organization a couple of years ago, so forgive me for knowing what a christian would say next, because ive been listening to it nonstop for two years now, but if youre going to insult me, get the hell off this discussion.
We already know you are a Christian (either that or you are a liar), so stop pretending you aren't.
You have just insulted a moderator...way to go, Mr. new here!
"Christian" is a big group. They come in many flavors. From "every word of the bible is literally true", to "While Jesus may have been fictional his message is true."
Personal note: The bible literalists are the easiest and most fun to deal with. Sounds like what you have on your hands. I am jealous.
There is no magic bullet that will show them wrong to themselves. Sounds like you need the general out lines of the atheist position. Here is roughly how I deal with it.
First, the burden is not on you to show there is no god but on them to show there is. Sounds like that is unfair to them. I agree but you can create many gods from scratch that are superior theirs where their god is just an inferior part of your god who is a trickster trying to lead you away from the real one. And you can do this all you want to them and you have turned the tables. (Note this does not work on Mormons very well.)
Second now that they have to play defense, you just keep showing all the problems with their theology.
Third, be honest to the facts. If there is a question you can not answer say so. Remember the facts are on your side. So do the research, maybe come here for a specific item or two or what ever.
Next be aware that they have supporting arguments too. If they say something is blue don't just reflexively turn back and say it is red. That does a great disservice to your self and the truth. And works against you.
Scientific answers are not just theories. They make predictions and get the predictions right! You don't need to see something to know it is true. Cops don't have to see the crime committed to be able to get the conviction. The evidence points to the criminal. Theories are put forward based on previous data. Then most the time new data comes along it squares with the theory.
Science bakes real bread. The same physics that tells us about the past of the universe is same one that advances the technological change in our world. Evolution is the same biology that drives medical advances.
Hope that helps
I have never held the position that scientific observations and predictions are invalid. Its just that wherever the question mark has to come into play, such as the big bang where its filled in witg the tiny ball of energy that had to explode, i call that creation, no ball, just god. Or evolution, where we can observe when animals appeared on the planet, but there are no fossil records with partial features connecting them to one another, i call that creation. I dont have a problem with science, just with those who fill in the gaps with speculation rather than God. God created science in my eyes. Gentleman, thank you for your opinions.
"Gentlemen"?
Either you are really young and or uneducated. Which is it?
@lbw:
"I dont have a problem with science, just with those who fill in the gaps with speculation rather than God."
It's theists who fill in the gaps with speculation about god. Hence the expression "god of the gaps". For scientists gaps are challenges and opportunities. They develop hypotheses based on the best available evidence and then test those hypotheses. Every hypothesis is peer-reviewed, and the tests must be replicable by other scientists. If a hypothesis is proved wrong, it's abandoned, and another one is tried. But all of that is hard work, so perhaps we should just give up say god did it.
lbw,
If you start with an expanding universe and run the clock backwards, what do you get? If you apply the laws of nature you get a collapse into a small, exceedingly dense, hot "ball." Of course that "ball" had to be "exploding" in order to lead to our expanding universe today. The Big Bang itself, not its history seconds, minutes or millions of years later, is where we reach the present limits of our knowledge. There is only one honest answer to questions about the Big Bang origin, and that is that we don't know. Trying to insert "God" in there is totally wrong-headed. First, it's not an honest answer since we are at the limit of our knowledge. Second, it's not an answer at all but rather a story. Stories just paint pictures which may or may not be true. Real explanations begin with known facts and build from there.
As for evolution, you have no idea how powerful the fossil record really is! You have been reading too much creationist propaganda rather than sound science. If you are serious about the subject of evolution and don't mind investing time in a rather long, non-technical but excellent read, get a copy of "Evolution: The First Four Billion Years," edited by Ruse and Travis. A number of outstanding scientists have contributed chapters to the book, but they are under strict orders to cut the jargon and make it readable for the layman.
Cyberln, whatever it is that is wrong with you, i hope you have a good day. Anger leads to the dark side of the force. Lol
Anger? Something is wrong with me? Interesting assumptions.
Matthew 5:16
"In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
Vs
Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."
John 14:27
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."
Vs
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Exodus 33:11
"The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent."
Vs
John 1:18
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
If this bible thing is so important why does it contradict itself so much? If God has the ability to convince me then why do I need a church to explain how to interpret the bible? Oh, that's right because it makes no sense to common people due to the contradictions.
@lbw:
"arguements against god and christianity"
The argument from implausibility: An all-powerful god created the world and people but they didn't turn out right so he drowned most of them. After the reboot they went bad again so he impregnated a virgin who gave birth to a son who was also god, who did a few magic tricks and then got himself tortured to death to save us from sins commited by his own creation. Then the dead son who was also god came back to life for a few days to prove that death doesn't matter.
If you believe all of that, I'd like to sell you the Eiffel Tower.
The argument from plagiarism: Every element in this weird story was stolen from other, older religions and cobbled together in a kind of pastiche. For example, the Greek/Roman god Dionysis was born from a virgin impregnated by Zeus. He was killed and came back to life. He did things with wine. Orion, the son of Neptune, walked on water.
The argument from evolution: The bible tells us we're descended from one breeding pair, Adam and Eve, about 6,000 years ago. Our DNA and the fossil record tells us we've been around a lot longer than that, and that we are related to every other living thing that has ever existed. Some have argued that god created fossils, etc., just to confuse us, to which I would reply with the argument from god is an idiot.
The argument from Occam's razor: Science can trace back the history of the universe to millionths of a second after the Big Bang. The God-of-the-Gappers claim that anything before that must be god's handiwork. Problem solved. Except where did god come from? Instead of trying to find the truth about the start of universe, religionists add another layer of complexity based on an unproved/untestable assumption.
@ mykcob4
- "Either you are really young and or uneducated. Which is it?"
My guess is that you're right on both counts.
I hate saying read such and such. But to successfully argue you need facts and be more familiar with the counter arguments.
The four horse me of the Apocalypse are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. They are in my view all excellent. Hitchens has a propensity to use a polysyllabic vocabulary(If you don't know what that means avoid him).
But an even easier resource is the posted videos of debates these gentlemen have had. A search will yield plenty of videos.
Again hope that helps.