50 reasons to doubt Christianity

[kyroot]

This list presents a challenge for Christians to counter-argue each of the points and defend the rationality of their beliefs. When all 50 are held in one hand there is no need to say "on the other hand." The case is closed- Christianity is a total fraud.

http://www.kyroot.com

 

[none]

Seems like a lot of effort, not sure this site is your target audience
I figured Christianity failed when enchanted reptiles and magical trees were considered seriously, along with dirt people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Calling Christianity a fraud makes Baby Jesus cry.

Therefore God.

Dispute that, heathens!

 

[credoconsolans]

Good work, but easily dispensed with by Christians with their usual brand of denial and cognitive contortion. I shall briefly play the devil's advocate while representing Christians

1) a short lifetime in this cruel mortal coil is all we need.

2) many are called, but few chosen. Living a godly life is hard. Getting to be like Jesus is not easily accomplished nor should it be.

3-4) If Hitler - who personally never laid a hand on anyone in violence - realized the magnitude of his sins and begged forgiveness...who are we to say god can't grant it to him? The Jews on the other hand are unbelievers.

5) Those people were all pagan and/or if not evil right now,were going to be. God could forsee it. So it's not a bad thing for them to be wiped out.

6) Jesus is god. Laws of men don't apply to him.

7) Depends on what flavor of Christianity you are. Some believe acts will get you saved, others believe faith alone, still others believe both.

8) Yes. So what is the issue? Died early from disease or in the womb or murdered, they still end up in the same place.

ad nauseum...

 

[bilby]

If you need more than one, then fifty is nowhere near enough.

 

[laruan]

my query is what sort of DNA did jesus have , seeing that it might have only one strand and not two , or if two what was the other one like .

aND

did it show up correctly on the Shroud of Turin

 

[DBT]

Fraud implies the intention to deceive, usually for the purpose of benefit for the fraudster. That may not have been the intention of all those who started the religion, or all those who perpetuated it. The driver may have been a combination of ignorance and desire for miracles and salvation, the product of hopes and dreams rather than fraud.....though there may have been some who were fraudsters, those who sought personal gain but secretly did not accept the beliefs.

 

[skepticalbip]

That list was written by the devil to fog your mind so you won't see the TRUTH and be saved....

If anyone thinks that list will have any impact on a fundy then they have never tried to talk to a fundy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, when creationists argue against evolution with arguments that start;

"It makes no sense that"

We tend to dismiss it as opinion, argument from ignorance and generally piss-poor logic.

But it seems to make compelling sense to other creationists.

 

[dx713]

So god is an asshole viewed from outside her religion. That's basically what the first reasons boil down to. So what?
It doesn't prove she doesn't exist (plus the whole "god's designs are unknowable" thing).

As Keith noted, there's a "ought to be" fallacy, the one a lot of theists throw in our faces the other way round, and we usually find nonsensical. (e.g. how can you cope with life having no meaning?)
The premises don't become less flawed because we agree with the conclusion for once.

I hope the other reasons are better, but honestly, I stopped reading at this stage, and I suppose your average theist would have too, and left happy to have found non-theists so easy to refute.

The global, non-itemized, problem of evil for the abrahamic god, or simply the lack of evidence for a more generic god, are enough for me to be a strong atheist. I don't need to pile fallacies on top of them.

 

[aeebee50]

Thanks for the resources. I will add this to my library.

 

[untermensche]

This is the morality of Jesus.

Some woman uses some expensive ointment of some kind on his feet. His followers complain and say the money could have gone to the poor.

So he says his feet are more important and there will always be the poor so why bother?

Who is it that likes it that many believe there will always be the poor? Could it be those who benefit because there are many who are poor?

Jesus spoke at a time when thinking there could be enough to go around was difficult. That is not possible anymore. There is more than enough to go around. There is no reason for the poor, especially in the biggest modern economies.

It is not enough that these kinds of things are not true. They are also destructive. It is destructive when your god tells you there will always be the poor.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I skim-read the list. It's good. It of course duplicates nearly every book that's out there on Biblical absurdities. And it will only be convincing to, first, those who would read it, and second, those who can afford to read it with a receptive intellect. I assume that 95% of those who meet both qualifications are already freethinkers. The truest of the True Believers who actually read their Bibles have built up a shell of sea turtle thickness to gird them against logical assaults on their myth. Most of us have either read or spoken with those who have this shell. I had a friend back in the 70s who was far gone into near-fundy Christianity. She had an answer to everything. The Bible says to execute sassy teenage sons? (And actually, I'm not sure it even limits that to teenagers!) Her response? God had to give them that law so that, in those perilous times, the Israelites could hold together and keep the faith alive in the world.
There is simply no amount of Bible savagery and primitivism that you can point out to the True Believers that will get them to look objectively and critically at the problem. That journalist who writes the 'Case for..' books, as in The Case for Faith, The Case for Jesus... whatever his name is. He writes about the genocide in the Bible and god's role in it, ordering it and committing it, and guess what? It's not a sign of a primitive religion and a tribal war deity!!! No, it's still the love god, making sure his faithful can survive in the world.
Therefore, I liked the list of 50, but it will make the same incremental, minimal change that all 'religious controversy' makes in the marketplace. It does have the benefit of concision. But atheist/believer dialogue is pretty hopeless at the start. I'd just like to get a conservative Christian to tell me why Romans 13 doesn't command him to stop resisting taxation and willingly pay his tax bill.

 

[DBT]

This is the morality of Jesus.

Some woman uses some expensive ointment of some kind on his feet. His followers complain and say the money could have gone to the poor.

So he says his feet are more important and there will always be the poor so why bother?

Who is it that likes it that many believe there will always be the poor? Could it be those who benefit because there are many who are poor?

Jesus spoke at a time when thinking there could be enough to go around was difficult. That is not possible anymore. There is more than enough to go around. There is no reason for the poor, especially in the biggest modern economies.

It is not enough that these kinds of things are not true. They are also destructive. It is destructive when your god tells you there will always be the poor.

It's probably much the same rationale used by those with wealth, power and position in our time.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. Don't test whether important ideas also exist within Christianity. Just throw the whole thing out. In addition, one should not use science because there are experiments that have had undesirable results.

Because laws have been used to oppress people in the past, all laws should be thrown out.

Because some religions hang on to archaic food and sex prohibitions, all religions should be thrown out.

OR, maybe fucking evolve and take what is good, and deal with what is bad. You don't eat tree bark, you eat the fucking cherries.

 

[NobleSavage]

Looks like you put a lot of work into that. More power to you.

 

[Kharakov]

Looks like you put a lot of work into that. More power to you.

Sarcasm noted. However, sometimes you need to provide a counterpoint to all the silly stupid shit people say against religion. There might actually be a few people who are stupid or inexperienced enough to believe it.

You take someone who says homosexuality is a choice, instead of a genetic proclivity, who then is totally prejudiced towards religious preference, which "is a choice", not a genetic proclivity. Or not. Basically, being an asshole is a choice... or is it a genetic proclivity?

If you say one thing is genetic, then you really have to accept that other things are genetic as well. The double standard of assholes who are too stupid to get this fact is.. well, probably not their fault- they are not intelligent enough to perceive their double standard because they lack the genetic proclivity for intelligent, rational thought.

This is generally reflected in the statements they make against religion, but then again, we've got  Poe's law..... so people could just be pretending to be totally ignorant of the double standard they hatefully apply to religions... or they could be joking about it.

 

[bilby]

Looks like you put a lot of work into that. More power to you.

Sarcasm noted. However, sometimes you need to provide a counterpoint to all the silly stupid shit people say against religion. There might actually be a few people who are stupid or inexperienced enough to believe it.

You take someone who says homosexuality is a choice, instead of a genetic proclivity, who then is totally prejudiced towards religious preference, which "is a choice", not a genetic proclivity. Or not. Basically, being an asshole is a choice... or is it a genetic proclivity?

If you say one thing is genetic, then you really have to accept that other things are genetic as well.

Horseshit.

Everything else here relies on this false premise.

The double standard of assholes who are too stupid to get this fact is.. well, probably not their fault- they are not intelligent enough to perceive their double standard because they lack the genetic proclivity for intelligent, rational thought.

This is generally reflected in the statements they make against religion, but then again, we've got  Poe's law..... so people could just be pretending to be totally ignorant of the double standard they hatefully apply to religions... or they could be joking about it.

Or they might understand that some things are genetic; some are environmental, and some are a combination of both; and that saying 'If homosexuality is genetic, then so is religion' is a completely unsupported and crazy thing to say.

Both may have a genetic component, but that's not to say they are comparable.

Religious people almost invariably share the religion of the community in which they are raised - whether or not it is the religion of their parents. Homosexuals rarely share the sexuality of the community in which they are raised.

The two are clearly very different in cause. Your assertion that they are equivalent suggests that you are more interested in making a convincing argument than in the quality of the 'facts' on which you rely.

Or perhaps you are stupid or inexperienced enough to actually believe what you are saying.

 

[Clivedurdle]

my query is what sort of DNA did jesus have , seeing that it might have only one strand and not two , or if two what was the other one like .

aND

did it show up correctly on the Shroud of Turin

Any host and wine from a properly conducted service of a sect should do - arguably that would be a small group of the Orthodox Church!

 

[Kharakov]

Or perhaps you are stupid or inexperienced enough to actually believe what you are saying.

Poe's law requires that you put a "" after a message to let people know that you aren't entirely serious. Which might have been why I mentioned Poe's law, and put a at the end of the post. Just maybe.

Religious people almost invariably share the religion of the community in which they are raised - whether or not it is the religion of their parents.

Nationalistic people almost invariably share the nationalism of the community in which they are raised, whether or not it is the nation of their parents. Football fans almost invariably share passion for their favorite clubs. Etc. etc.. is your point that loving certain aspects of the culture of one's youth is natural? Not really sure where you're going with that one.

I care about eliminating oppression and hate- I don't care who is doing it. Hatred must be eliminated everywhere, and sometimes it requires showing someone their actions are duplicitous.

Homosexuals rarely share the sexuality of the community in which they are raised.

Yeah. Bisexuals are the only ones who truly share the sexuality of the whole community in which they were raised. It's impossible to "share the sexuality" of a community without playing both sides (and this goes far further than simple sexuality).

Unless you mean that homosexuals must go against their sexual preferences to have children?

The two are clearly very different in cause. Your assertion that they are equivalent suggests that you are more interested in making a convincing argument than in the quality of the 'facts' on which you rely.

Like I said, being religious is a genetic proclivity, or a choice. Or not. Being an asshole is a genetic proclivity, or choice, or not.

And you really need to figure out exactly what I oppose before you start arguing against what I say, or else you end up promoting hate instead of community.

I oppose hate. Doesn't matter if it's an atheist asshole who hides behind genetics to attack a social group (such as a religion), or a theistic asshole who hides behind a social group to attack a genetic group such as those who have a propensity for homosexual behaviors.

And really, when you see hate, you might as well expose it for what it is so that someone can modify there behaviors. Even if you have to get someone to attack a strawman you set up in order to show them that their hatred is also bad.

If you do not analyze your own behaviors, and hold yourself to a high standard, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And ultimately, if our behaviors destroy and harm one another, rather than lead towards unity... don't they need to stop?