I have never seen a good argument against Christianity.

>There is continuity. You are in heaven who you are on Earth.
So if you broke your neck and were left paralyzed from the neck down you're still a cripple in heaven? That sounds awful, do they at least have wheelchairs?

So what's preserved? Your identity is made up of numerous facets, many of which are incompatible with heaven. Someone likes money, they still surrender their life to Jesus and are saved, do they just get a part of their personality hacked off? And yes even the cripple who spent decades experiencing life from an entirely different point of view has the fact that he's crippled as a massive part of his existence, suddenly having the ability to move freely as well as the loss of built up emotional pain would be a ceasing in continuity. What about negative memories, no tears in heaven so do you forget negative memories or are you forced to smile when you recall seeing your husband shot in the head by a rotten burglar?

>Your identity is unified. It manifests in numerous facests
A single piece made up of numerous facets changes if the facets change. If you decide to upgun an M1 Abrams with a 120mm gun it's no longer an M1 Abrams, it's an M1A1 Abrams. Changing a facet changed the core design and its capabilities and application.

The same is true of people lets say you know a guy, he's a Christian he genuinely believes in God but he's grumpy and kind of an butthole, he puts money before friends, he's violent, he's constantly scowling, and he hates people who ask him for help, and to top it all off he's hideous, a fricking twisted abomination. He dies and since he surrendered his soul to Jesus he goes to heaven. Now all the flaws are fixed, instead of a crooked back he has great posture, instead of an ugly face he looks handsome, instead of being a violent, greedy, angry looking butthole he's a sweet, generous, and happy looking swell guy. Would you consider him the same person?

Now what if we do the same thing but instead of dying and going to heaven he's dragged to the hospital and surgically modified by the government to be a perfect citizen acting like the heaven version described above? Should we be happy for him? Should we want to be dragged off by the government and improved?

I wasn't wrong either time. Participation is part of perfection. Because without participation there's just separation, which is it's imperfect. Because there is something to be fundamentally perfected.
I don't know what I would do if God came down to me and said a syllogism doesn't hold water, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

If you can't imagine your grandma coping with divine justice, then that's either on your imagination or on your grandma. Not trying to be harsh, but the objection really doesn't affect Christianity.

Everyone look upon the quality of atheist arguments

>we created a perfect society
>by what rules?
>by our rules
Thanks, much to be learned.

You should honestly read what you just wrote and feel embarrassed.

Imagine now you are also in charge of the galery the security and the criminal doing it and you just let it happen. Everyone will think "what the frick why did he ruin his masterpiece" and rightfully so.

If it was perfect he would have put it behind glass so nobody could smear shit over it

God is not responsible for your sin

>They just are compatible, lol
You inventing some incoherent concepts, and claiming they are all true at the same time.
Is not really persuasive to me, if you are not gonna say how they interact

You invented omnipotence and omniscience, you get to say how it interacts with free will
This is all nonsense to me

Being omnipotent means god knows people perfectly and the initial conditions of the universe, your fate was predestined.

>But muh free will

Think of it like this, you have a father, brother, best friend who you know well, you can probably imagine with good accuracy how they would react in a situation. You could know how you might react even better, but god knows you perfectly, better than you know yourself, he has perfect information and knows exactly how you would react to any situation and how your actions would change yourself.

How do you define free will?

I doubt you're the guy in question and it was an honest question.

>you can do whatever you want
I wanna fly. Why am I not flying? Do I lack free will?
>but if you don't dedicate your entire life to worshipping me ill send you to eternal torture uwu
Eh whatever, we're talking about freedom of will, not freedom from consequences. Stealing $50k worth of israeliteelry will get you sent to prison, that being said most people wouldn't like it if the government installed chips into everyone that made them incapable of committing crimes.

>omniscience doesn't mean you won't be held accountable for your choices
Whut
If God literally knows the outcome already that isn't a life of choices or free will, it is destiny set in stone.

The one who's fedora is cutting off blood to his brain

moron

>they should have kept Jesus message pure
You mean like when He said "the scriptures testify of me"?

I'm circlejerking about how superior I am because I'm not jerking a troon's diseased semen into my beard. Okay

>Trannies and Abrahamists are similar which explains why every Christian nation on earth allows the propagation and validaiton of Trannies.
Notice again atheists, how this incoherent babble proves my point. My point was that these men "in unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Romans 1:18). Who is he lying to? Anyone but himself? Is that not suppression of the truth to tell yourself a bold faced lie?

Yes. Like 50 percent of posts by your kind of people are about how trannies ruin le society. That part is right. Obsessed mongoloid

/misc/ is just edgy reddit mentality

Nope. I'm perfectly happy rejecting both israelite delusions and John Money ones.

There really is zero proof of a global flood. Even if all the icecaps melted and we pulled all the wter out of the atmosphere there would still be plenty of habitable land. So if the world at one point was flooded where did all the water go?

If the argument is one you can only point to and not explain yourself I doubt its effectiveness. Now if you type a response I’ll read it, you could even post it on pastebin if it’s too big but I’m not going to waste time watching some literally who youtube videos.

>Fedora cope. There are mountains of evidence proving a global catastrophic flood. You're just willingly ignorant. 2 Peter 3

Biblical inerrancy is purely deductive, a priori not inductive, a posteriori. "Evidence" generally has connotations of relating to inductive, a posteriori and empirical reasoning.

There really is zero proof of a global flood. Even if all the icecaps melted and we pulled all the wter out of the atmosphere there would still be plenty of habitable land. So if the world at one point was flooded where did all the water go?

There's no point in providing any scientific evidence against their arguments, because it depends on the pure axiom of biblical inerrancy. It is a metaphysics debate, not a physics debate.

Under Christian doctrine life is just a waiting room anyway, it's the whole reason Christians justify living shitty lives is okay. "It's okay that you're dead from the neck down and your family stops answering your calls because you're a burden. Only 40 more years and you'll get eternal joy."

Thankfully there is no afterlife. Agnostic atheism is illogical as if there is even a chance that a religion with eternal suffering as a consequence of non-belief exists than it stands to reason that by sheer scale one should be chosen even if only randomly. Ergo I have no fear of hell because I'm certain it doesn't exist and if I thought it may exist I would pick a religion with the doctrine of non-belief resulting in eternal damnation.

>this age old book told me god is a justiciar, just like our kings but even greater, he is omnipotent being that can do and create anything
>he spends his existence making sure every human being is a good boy or he will send them to eternal torture
sounds like a weird medieval psycho king

I'm just gonna (genuinly) repent on my deathbed, no justice for me

Is there some particular problem with repenting? Isn't that why Jesus died

Okay, so what exactly do you think is going on. That they will be torment by like a team of 20 demons instead of just a couple?
You've not told me what you think hell is

>It's not made up of numerous facests. It manifests in multiple facests like an object can cast multiple shades from different angles. It's still one thing.
Okay so you would be okay being sent to the good citizen hospital? Just want to make it clear that we have entirely separate ideas on self and our ideas are incompatible.

>What's that?
You think none of your individual facets of existence are tied to the whole, I disagree.

>Then it's not an autobiography, is it?
The bible is an autobiography about god.
>This is how I created the earth
>This is how I chose my people
>This is how I aided my people
>This is how my people repeatedly let me down
>This is how I came down as a man
>This is how I preached and was crucified

>I was asking about the hospital, I must have missed something.
It was an analogy.
>Man goes to heaven, looks and acts like an entirely different person
>Man goes to hospital, looks and acts like an entirely different person
Personally neither of these seem good to me. At best they might be neutral if I was suicidal since I still wouldn't exist either way and just get replaced

>I think the facets are mostly accidental like shades of a real object are accidental in the world mostly.
An object can create different shadows but it has a limited number of shadows. A ball will never cast a pointy shadow while remaining a functioning ball. If a guy whose generally a gruff butthole starts walking around like a polite, sweet, nice guy than yeah I would think that a core part of his being has probably changed.

>It's a manual and a spiritual tool, not an encyclopedia of what happened when.
Than it has a lot of filler information that holds no value. Either way a book with an omnipotent author or guide should have zero inconsistencies regardless of how minor. I can write a book about car repair and maybe when I off-handedly mention who invented a car part I might say it was invented in 1912 and then off-handedly mention the same date again but mention it as 1917. God however if he wrote a book on car repair should be absolutely consistent because he's omnipotent.

>You literally said you require it lol
Reading comprehension. If you want to make an argument for your fantasy, or try to convince me of anything, you need evidence.

I'm not here to prove anything, you are.

I just got off the phone with your doctor, he said you're literally moronic.

See

I keep responding because you're really confident in your conflation fallacies.
>prayer is meditation
>experiencing is imagining
>seeing for yourself is terrible evidence lol

You wanted something, you were offered exactly it and you're backing away. Filtered.

You're deflecting direct offer of evidence with conflation fallacies using Anime lmaooo

Why are you afraid of evidence, weeb?

>Called out for conflation fallacy 3x
>Repeats conflation fallacies
>Adds shifted goaposts from God to verifiably divine interactions

Listen I don't know what Anime you're watching hahah but you're falling apart here, my friend. Try without the fallacies, ok?

I think I got lost when you were offered evidence and started backing out like it was gonna kill you. Pretty funny, I must say.
Soooo you got anything besides conflation fallacies and moved goalposts or...?

I know you’ll never accept this because it would shatter your world but it’s for anyone reading who has a functioning brain without gargantuan emotional barriers to accepting it:
Not checking evidence you asked for is on you. Even if you have fallacies to use as excuses.

You have nothing except insisting on multiple clear fallacies, I'm sorry. Take the L and move on to the next thread where you'll ask for evidence and then insist on not seeing it hahaha

>trick into believing
We weren't talking about arriving to a belief, but about seeing evidence.

I respect that you're trying really really hard, but you've got nothing except "I think I looked hard enough when I was a kid" going for you.
Feel free to live based on that. But I'll mock you lmao

>Not a kid! A teenager!!
Oh my bad.
>>>Give evidence.
>> Ok come see this.
> No no seeing is psychological.
Filtered.

>Huh? I'm pretty sure I think God exists all the time.
You’re telling people who don’t believe in your god to do the same thing people on /x/ do when they make an anime character imaginary friend. I know you’re not going to accept that praying about Jesus is focused meditation toward a Tulpa, but that’s what it is,

>Not as far as people owning the book understand
I don’t know what book you are reading, because a lot of it is just a list of things and how they happened in simple and straightforward language.

God did x, god talked to y person and told him to do z.

Because it operates with an unsustainable and collapsed definition of responsibility. Literally nothing and nobody is responsible for anything ever. That sounds like a useful understanding of a term to you haha?

Not about history, no. Which was my point about the Bible not trying to teach history.

The word "truth" is only used analogically. The source of the analogy, formal correspondence/coherence truth, the target of the analogy, outside of space and time. Univocally and via negativa, you would say, "God is not correspondence" and "God is not coherence."

"God is Correspondence", "God is Coherence", "God is Pragmatic", "God is Deflationary" etc don't appear very univocal. It even sounds unbiblical. So "God is Truth" appears to have very little meaning.

>what if someone else said it
Then I would respond.
>You prove your god is real
Ok, pray with me.

>>>I need evidence.
>>Ok come with me.
>No.
Filtered.

>>Come see it for yourself.
>That's not evidence though.
Filtered.

>>Come look at evidence, it's right here
>What if I'd be imagining things
Filtered.

>Oh I didn't think about the location. But what I was trying to lead you to was your inner presence, your awareness. The thing that experiences that thoughts, that experiences the memories whatever they might be. That is part of your inner identity. This is mostly a Hindu argument to make but it gets you on track of what 'unified identity' really means.
I don’t believe in that. A human is a collection of parts, there is no singular self. You could bring up the argument of Theseus’ ship perhaps but Theseus’ ship is predicated on a gradual replacement of parts so while one might consider my younger self me, the lobotomized and surgically reconstructed me isn’t. Point being I don’t believe in a unified self leading back to the fact that we have a fundamental disagreement on this concept which I doubt you can convince me to change my opinion on.
>People nagging about their current standards not being met is something the Spirit is apparently ok with. I don't think this point will move much further. You'd have liked ancient Hebrews and Greeks to quote in 21st century Western standards, they didn't find it necessary, c'est la vie.
Yet the book wasn’t written for contemporary readers, it was written for all readers many of whom even when it was written would have been annoyed by inconsistencies and found it an argument for nonbelief. Once again this is an issue either with the supposed inspiration or the people supposedly chosen by god to write the books.

presence, your awareness
>I don’t believe in that.
But you do experience your thoughts and not mine. There's [your] presence experiencing these thoughts.
>Theseus' ship
If Theseus' ship had a consciousness, it would be a very straight-forward argument to solve.
>even when it was written would have been annoyed by inconsistencies
Not really, ancient quoting standards were very relaxed. And the standard was up to the inspired ancient person to use.

>I would have different thoughts
Who would have different thoughts? Who would be experiencing this difference? Not just your body or brain, you can perform this mental experiment even without them.
>So the bible is irrelevant in the modern day because it wasn't written for a modern audience.
Non sequitur. Parts are written for very specific audiences (like monks on Thessaloniki), it's still relevant manual and it's still relevant and still a manual even if an amount of horses in a battle changes from one book to another.

>>Who would have different thoughts?
>The collection of parts together.
That is your definition of self, you're basically answering me "when I would have different thoughts then it is I who would have different thoughts". I'm trying to lead you to the fact that you're consciously experiencing some memories and not others. They get brought up by your cognition, sure, but they get brought up into awareness which is your own. But it's a very introspective point to make and I understand it's difficult to make it happen on an image board so no pressure. Just wanted to push our differences aside the best way I could.

Your proof that the Christian god is real is meditating while thinking about the god and pretending you’re talking to it. You don’t actually have real proof. You’re not filtering me by the way, you keep responding because you know what you’re saying is moronic and worthless.

If the Christian god was real you would not need to enter directed meditation to interact with it, that’s your imagination you goofy frick

Prayer is a meditative exercise. You think it’s magic because you’re a troglodyte. Proof is evidence of your god appearing or interacting with physical reality outside imagination.

I’m just using your posts as an example, stop pretending you’re filtering me by all means

>Not as long as you identify yourself with temporary things like thoughts.
Yes, because I am the collective of my parts, remove too many parts and it's no longer the same thing. As I said a while ago this is a fundamental disagreement we have on the sense of self.

Why would I need evidence?

That is perfectly compatible with what I said.
You were wrong, I corrected you.

>my evidence for christianity is your feelies
sorry. not stirring a single emotion. you're really doing a piss poor job. god is going to be so disappointed in you and send you to hell.

Are you moronic? I am making a point about how people can be persuaded
I'm not a Christian

prove it

I’m not him I’m the original guy who said god is real but not personal. It’s just about what’s true not “if there’s a point to believing it”

It’s fascinating that you think this way though.

>So you're not the same person whatsoever as when you were 6? How can you say those childhood pictures are of you then if there is no underlying identity behind looks and actions?
No. I share the same genetics, and some features and interests share similarities, but beyond that I don't view that child as the same individual, they're like a younger twin, their actions although I might largely understand them due to having memories of committing them are actions my present self would not commit.

>Across 70 books? Do you know someone like that? Again, they're allowed to write as they want as long as it gets the job done. If their writing isn't up to your personal standard, that's not really the Church's problem.
I hated Francis Bacon and he managed to keep all of his ramblings consistent. Each generation has to have a few thousand people of his calibre at least.

>It is. The people aren't.
Than how can you call it divinely inspired if it isn't divine enough that people who are directly receiving the inspiration are unable to keep it consistent?

>Have you ever heard of original sin?
Not him but original sin isn't biblial. It was a gnostic idea brought in by Augustine -- an "ex" gnostic. We inherit death because of the curse of adam, but not his guilt. The Bible specifically says the son does not inherit the guilt of the father.

>same genetics
Ok let me go further. Tomorrow we swap bodies you and me. We also swap memories, behaviors and thought patterns so that to an outside observer it looks as though nothing has changed.
What was it that was swapped?

>Francis Bacon
We'll hire that bloke for the newest Testament then.

>Than how can you call it divinely inspired if it isn't divine enough
It is divine enough to do the job. That's the criterium. 21st century quoting standards arein't a criterium to what's divine lol

>The location we were or nothing.
Oh I didn't think about the location. But what I was trying to lead you to was your inner presence, your awareness. The thing that experiences that thoughts, that experiences the memories whatever they might be. That is part of your inner identity. This is mostly a Hindu argument to make but it gets you on track of what 'unified identity' really means.
>Someone should fire those guys.
Is that a pun?
>>It is divine enough to do the job
>Evidently not if people find it lacking in substance or consistency.
People nagging about their current standards not being met is something the Spirit is apparently ok with. I don't think this point will move much further. You'd have liked ancient Hebrews and Greeks to quote in 21st century Western standards, they didn't find it necessary, c'est la vie.

All the contingency argument does is say "Things exist, but they need an external cause, therefore god". Literally just a roundabout god-of-the-gaps argument.

The reason religious people (not only Christians), always loop around back to the god-of-the-gaps argument is that you don't have EVIDENCE. All you have is empty rhetoric. Show me evidence, meatbag. You're not god, and you don't know god, and you don't even know if there is a god. All you got is feelies and empty statements that lead nowhere.

>These people think they can reason towards a Creator....
You're not god. Provide evidence. In fact, provide evidence that *your* god is real, that doesn't provide the same degree of evidence for any other god like Odin, Shiva, Amaterasu, etc.. If the contingency argument was proof of anything (which it so obviously is not), then you still need to prove that Brahman isn't said god, but your god is.

Prove it doesn't apply to Brahman. And read about Hinduism. Or any other religion for that matter. Polytheism doesn't mean all the gods are equal or came from the same source. Most polytheistic religions claim one eternal god, who created other gods (which is not that unlike what is written in the bible. You should probably read it at some point).

Secondly, I still see no evidence for god. Just impotent IQfy arguments. Prove god, limpdick, or stfu. You're literally still at the starting line. You haven't budged a fricking inch in the right direction. If anything, you've proved even more that you don't have any proof of anything but your own incompetence and complete lack of intelligence.

>volumes of natural evidence.
Where's the evidence. This whole thread, and not a lick of evidence. Just empty rhetoric. It's getting stale.

>As I said, the argument
An argument is not evidence, moron. Everything can be argued for, that's why we need evidence.

The dumbest part of the contingency argument (as with most christian arguments) is that it just provides you with more burden of proof. Your argument just demands more evidence from you. You had a claim (that god is real), and your argument provides another claim which just forces you to provide evidence for that claim.

>Because everything we have observed in nature so far is evidence for contingency.
Prove it. Can you prove numbers are not contingent? You've just added another layer to prove instead of proving your first claim that god exists.

Anon you told people to pray with you and that was your “evidence”

Wiccans say the same thing about the horned one. It’s psychological. We want evidence that your god appears in reality and/or interacts with it outside of a subjective experience in a meditative state like prayer.

You could easily prove prayer works in experiment and it doesn’t.

>Not what you asked for originally, no. Shifted goalposts.
That’s what I’ve always meant by proof, if you thought I meant something other than proof of your god appearing in the world or interacting with it you were mistaken.

>And you ran away screaming when you were offered a way.
I’m still here talking to you, I just said I’ve prayed and it’s a meditative psychological exercise. I even did believe it at one point, and you really seem to gloss over that.
I’m asking for proof of your god appearing in reality of interacting with it. Thats what proof that something exists is.

You are very bitter and aggressive for a Christian. Not Christ-like at all

I just want evidence anon, if you think asking for evidence of your god existing is bad faith then I don’t know what to tell you. If I had proof I would believe in the Christian god.

The mask slipped on him there lol, not even trying to be like Christ

> Here, come and see.
Where is it then? Which comment provided evidence?

Lol. Like always. I guess you just didn't believe in the unfounded assertion enough. Just believe in whatever he tells you to believe, and you will agree with him.

You never provided proof of the Christian god interacting with reality or appearing in it. You never do and you never will.

>what I will do is show you that you can see God for yourself
Snap a picture next time you summon him. We would all love to see, unless he’s in your imagination of course, can’t get a picture of that :^)

>How
You just said you can see God, well prove it. Summon him and take a picture. Wait he’s just in your imagination so you can’t take a picture.

I never said the numbers thing, You said you can see God well take a picture then.

Let me guess, you can’t. Am I right?

You told me I can see god for myself using your method why can’t we take a picture? Is this hard for you? God isn’t just in your imagination…right?

It’s not our fault that you don’t know what the phrase “take a picture” means.

This anon told people he can see God, we asked him to take a picture and he just got stuck in a loop of asking “how” It’s not because he doesn’t know how to take a picture of something, it’s because he’s in checkmate and he doesn’t know where to go.

>No idea how I'd take a picture though.
He’s repeating the same thing again.

He wasn’t able to think ahead that being able to see something means you can take a picture of it, so he trapped himself.

Yes christcuck, you’re in checkmate. You walked right into it.

You can see god but don’t know to take a picture of him? Sounds like he’s in your imagination.

>I see your point. Oh wait... has to be my imagination, right?

Yup! Glad you’re finally understanding, you can “see” god but can’t take a picture because you’re not actually seeing something in physical reality, it’s your imagination. Try not to end it all

With a fricking camera, moron. I've literally been to heaven more than 50 times. Never seen any gods or angels. morons like you claimed they were in heaven (and still do) for almost 2 millennia, but when we went there, no gods. Where's the evidence, frickwit?

>I'd love to start this over,
Or at all.

>do you prefer not reading a conclusive argument
Arguments are not evidence, moron. It's just another claim you have to provide evidence for.

>with mountains of natural evidence
Prove it.

You forgot to point to any evidence.

are not evidence, moron
>Ah, I forgot to mention - the argument
"There is evidence, I promise!" =/= actual evidence

still waiting for evidence. squirm all you want, but every reply without evidence is just more proof you don't have any, and god's existence is just a fantasy fever dream.

>I will tell you where the evidence is
Wake me when you do.

I must admit I have trouble coping with how much you avoide providing evidence. I can provide a lot of evidence for everything I believe. Yet, you can't even provide any evidence for the most important belief you hold.

corr
*a field
lol damn it

Oof, you almost had to admit you can't provide jack shit without lists of evidence or without claims about evidence. Haha no worry, we can come back to our usual routine:

I tell you where the evidence is listed and you ... literally go to sleep. Sounds good, moron?

So, the evidence is listed in elaborations on the argument.

Saying it isn't evidence. The evidence is evidence. Read it where it's listed.

Oh wait... you're refusing hahaha. Did that bait and switch make you realize that you're the blocker here or is that still about to sink in?

>Read it where it's listed
Where's that?

>AHahah as I've said multiple times now,
You *said* the evidence? That's not how evidence work, moron.

>elaborations on the argument is evidence
That's not evidence, moron.

>ALL EVIDENCE we've observed so far is fitting.
*Prove it.

>You observed numbers in nature
Yes.

>The evidence was provided.
A claim is not evidence. Where's the evidence, loser?

Anon you are incredibly bitter and you have no proof. Why even bother talking? It’s making you upset, you have nothing, just go on about your day with your Jesus tulpa.

>doesn't know the plural of "strawman"
Oh.

lists evidence
>I want the evidence tho
Oh.

My dear, you've been stuck for over an hour insisting that a text listing instances of evidence is not actually evidence. After claiming that you've seen numbers in nature... you're a cretin, Anon.

>Where's the evidence?
Listed in elaborations on the argument.
>No evidence
It's listed in elaborations on the argument.
>text listing claims is not evidence
Yeah. It's listing evidence.

Again, you've been stuck for an hour trying to not read an argument and not read the evidence provided. The elaboration lists instances of evidence in case you wondered.

Maybe learn to differentiate mere claims from listing of evidence.

>israeli mythology
No, he chose to reveal himself to the israelites first in order for the narrative to work for the rest of the world. They were given every chance in the world to be a chosen people, but in the end killed the son of God. They became the synagogue of satan. The Bible serves as the story of their fall, just like Lucifer. You are manipulated by the israelites daily so cannot see this obviousness.

Sure lol

There never is. Tribes of all kinds in the ancient world made up gods and this is just a surviving belief system.

In a slightly different timeline these people would be using essentially the same arguments about the god Jupiter.