"Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions"

[ItBeMacKenzie]

Hey, everybody!

So, as I was searching the web for some answers to some of the issues that I've been struggling with, I came across a collection of arguments that attack many fundamental Christian beliefs called, "Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions". I found this work to be discouraging, as it pretty much summed up all of the arguments that caused me to start doubting in the first place.

I was wondering if some of you could take a look at this article (I'd link to it, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm allowed to do that? A quick google search will link to the article), give me your thoughts on it, and provide me with some sources that refute the arguments posed in it? Thanks

[RickD]

If you're worried about the link, you can pm me the link, and I'll look it over. If it's ok to post, I'll add the link to your original post.

[Jac3510]

What you are talking about is essentially an online book. I skimmed the contents and didn't see anything I haven't seen ten million times before. Frankly, it's rather juvenile, or if you prefer something a little more charitable, it is to theology what the the History Chanel is these days to history. I mean, anyone using "popular" atheist arguments like claiming the Bible says the earth is flat or that rabbits chew the cud is someone I immediately write off as uneducated at best. The whole opening section is little more than poisoning the well, and they actually think that Jesus never existed. And to prove it, they link to jesusneverexisted.com! I mean . . . REALLY. Anybody who thinks THAT is a real source is about as interesting as someone who looks to the National Enquirer or the Onion for the news sources.

Look, anybody can throw together a quick 'n' dirty case against Christianity. It's lazy thinking. So let me tell you what I would strongly encourage you to do: start at the first argument and look up the rebuttals. They are very easy to find. If you have trouble finding them, ask us here. But for now, take it on faith from me that this is all a joke. If you take my advice and actually do this, when you get to the end of it, you're going to be shocked at how foolish it all is. And for what it is worth, that's how I got my start around 20 years ago. Somebody posted an article called 101 Contradictions in the Bible. I didn't know too much back then, and some of them seemed like a big deal. So I literally went through every single one. I looked them all up and found that ALL of them were flimsy (to put it politely). About a year later I found that others had done the same thing and had posted their answers on the web, and not surprisingly, a great many of my answers were the same. I cannot tell you how much that exercise strengthened my faith.

So far from looking at this as something to be afarid of, look at this as an opportunity to see better through the garbage that's out there. Right now, you have to take it on faith that it's garbage. And seriously, ask those of us who have been around a very long time if any of those arguments worry us one bit. Frankly, you'll find from us a collective yawn, because it really is boring. But that is great news for you--not because we can give you answers. No, but because that means that in a relatively short time, you can get all the answers, too, and then you will find yourself in a place where you think it's boring, too.

tl;dr - there's too much to answer in anything like a single post. Go through that site item by item. I promise you that there are lots of answers. All of those "arguments" are tired, old, and discredited. They are using ridiculous sources that no serious people take seriously. Do that, and when you get through the process, you'll have an immensely strongly faith than you did before, and you'll actually be thanking God for letting you get a taste of that garbage. I mean, if that's the best that atheists have to offer (and, sadly, it isn't, but it is pretty typical of the popular atheism fifteen year old boys find interesting), then you'll rest much easier in your faith.

edit:

I'm going to jump way ahead, by the way . . . to prove how juvenile this is, read this book:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18087/18 ... 8087-h.htm

It's called Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte. There, the author uses exactly the same kind of "reasoning" as these fools to show that Napoleon never existed. It's a hysterical read, and not terribly wrong. When you see their methods for what they are, you'll write them off for what they are--conspiracy theorists no better and no more serious than these . . . er . . . nice folks (my favorite among these being the claim that the moon doesn't exist . . . really, if people can claim that the moon doesn't exist, are you at all concerned when people can claim that Jesus didn't exist?!?)

[abelcainsbrother]

Hey, everybody!

So, as I was searching the web for some answers to some of the issues that I've been struggling with, I came across a collection of arguments that attack many fundamental Christian beliefs called, "Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions". I found this work to be discouraging, as it pretty much summed up all of the arguments that caused me to start doubting in the first place.

I was wondering if some of you could take a look at this article (I'd link to it, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm allowed to do that? A quick google search will link to the article), give me your thoughts on it, and provide me with some sources that refute the arguments posed in it? Thanks

If Jesus ever truly saved you it would not matter what critics of Christianity say against it or the bible.I know Jesus is alive and real because he saved me and changed me as I did not change myself or join a religion and change myself,I was changed the moment Jesus saved me and I've never forgot it.It does not matter what atheists say as I know they are liars on their way to hell.

[Mallz]

I just had to point out... Shark Spies
Soooo true because it's just cool and what I want is real. <- typical atheist 'philosophy'. Or would it be more accurate to say anti-philosophy?

[Audie]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

[bippy123]

Hey, everybody!

So, as I was searching the web for some answers to some of the issues that I've been struggling with, I came across a collection of arguments that attack many fundamental Christian beliefs called, "Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions". I found this work to be discouraging, as it pretty much summed up all of the arguments that caused me to start doubting in the first place.

I was wondering if some of you could take a look at this article (I'd link to it, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm allowed to do that? A quick google search will link to the article), give me your thoughts on it, and provide me with some sources that refute the arguments posed in it? Thanks

Hey my friend , Jac is right these are basically ignorant pseudo skeptic atheist argument that can be debunked with a little research .

Here is an example from that article , and this is the link the op was most likely talking about.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunk ... Page10.htm

Also, Josephus’ famed passage citing Jesus in his works of Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, has been hotly contested among scholars. Here is the passage in question:

“

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

There are three scholarly positions on this passage. Some scholars believe it to be a genuine passage of Josephus. Others believe it to be interpolation or a forgery added in by Christians. The third group considers the passage to be genuine in a simpler form, with the words in italics above added in later by Christian copyists. But there are many problems with this, and I will only list the main ones. First, Josephus did not live in the time of Jesus nor did he meet him. He was simply writing what he had heard from others that was passed on.

This is typical of how atheists usually cherry pick information from ancient historians to make it seem that the evidence supports their ignorant views . I had an email debate with an atheist . He was so excited and thought he had me stumped .
This was basically my response to him .

Most historians believe this passage to be an interpolation , and how about I grant it to you completely as an interpolation .
There was a tiny little part that you left out and that there was a second passage from Josephus which is almost Unanimously believed to be authentic Jospehus .

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

The Testimonium Flavianum

According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

After I showed him the second Jospehus passage that us universally believed to be authentic Josephus, I never heard from that atheist again

Dang , and I was just starting to have a little fun

So as u can see ItBeMacKenzie, these are old and debunked arguments in which if there is a little research done , they can be debunked easily . The problem is I can't get these atheists to stay

[bippy123]

This article is from Winston wu who owns the scepcop forum , a forum that at least does one good service and that is to debunk the James randi forum.

This article here shows thay Winston wu's problem isn't really a problem with Christianity per say but a problem stemming from him probably growing up in churches that stress extreme legalism. He still believes in spirituality but has an extreme view of Christianity.
Here is an example of his thinking .

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/th ... -atheists/

In fairness to Mr. Wu, it sounds like he has endured an absolutely terrible experience with churches and Christians. I have no desire to affirm cultures ruled by fear, irrationality, and psychological control. It is a tragedy that any church might ‘function’ in this way.

Still, we can summarize this chain of thinking as follows:

Evangelical Christians are controlled by irrational forces.
Therefore, they are no longer able to reason.
Therefore, their beliefs are not based on reason.
Therefore, we can reject their beliefs as false.
Therefore, their belief in the existence of heaven and hell is irrational.
Therefore, evangelical Christians are controlled by irrational beliefs.
Is Winston’s ‘argument’ all that different from standard lines from Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins? Not really.

Here’s Sam Harris: “It is time we recognized that this spirit of mutual inquiry, which is the foundation of all real science, is the very antithesis of religious faith.”

Here’s Dawkins: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

It is astonishing that Harris and Dawkins are unable to see (or admit) that Christians can and do love mutual inquiry, ‘real’ science, ordinary science, and evidence. Both Christians and atheists use the same rational methods of pursuing truth. The difference is in our conclusions, not our methodology. But instead of a reasoned response appropriate to the Christian’s arguments, these ‘rebuttals’ amount to no more than self-confirming circles of selective definitions.

Mackenzie , as you can see he doesn't present more then emotional arguments about Christianity stemming probably frim his upbringing in churches that are into legalism in an extreme way .

[bippy123]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No but it is very good Christian practice to expose arguments made against Christianity from almost pure emotion .
But the again Audie we know ur extremely unbiased and neutral right

[Danieltwotwenty]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No but it is very good Christian practice to expose arguments made against Christianity from almost pure emotion .
But the again Audie we know ur extremely unbiased and neutral right

I think also that people hold theists to a higher standard, like they are meant to be more moral or something, I'm afraid that we are just as fallible as people of no belief and there are just as many nasty Christians as there are nasty atheists. Read my signature if you don't believe me, I am the worst of sinners, thank God for Christ, because I damn well need him like I need oxygen.

[PaulSacramento]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No, it is a sign of NOT ENOUGH Christ in our lives.

[Audie]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No, it is a sign of NOT ENOUGH Christ in our lives.

Of course I know that it is not good practice. I do know a fair number of Christians who I admire very much for their character and how they put their faith into practice.

Some nominal Christians are everything that is being said here, about all atheists.

In general this forum seems to be a lot better calibre than to host a thread like this one.

[PaulSacramento]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No, it is a sign of NOT ENOUGH Christ in our lives.

Of course I know that it is not good practice. I do know a fair number of Christians who I admire very much for their character and how they put their faith into practice.

Some nominal Christians are everything that is being said here, about all atheists.

In general this forum seems to be a lot better calibre than to host a thread like this one.

The thread subject is perfectly fine Audie.
Many Christians do not know how to answer these issues by skeptics, even though none of them are new and have been addressed many times over the ages.

Sometimes people simply don't know how to do the research needed, that'a all.

[Audie]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No, it is a sign of NOT ENOUGH Christ in our lives.

Of course I know that it is not good practice. I do know a fair number of Christians who I admire very much for their character and how they put their faith into practice.

Some nominal Christians are everything that is being said here, about all atheists.

In general this forum seems to be a lot better calibre than to host a thread like this one.

The thread subject is perfectly fine Audie.
Many Christians do not know how to answer these issues by skeptics, even though none of them are new and have been addressed many times over the ages.

Sometimes people simply don't know how to do the research needed, that'a all.

I was not saying there is anything wrong with the subject.

The calibre I was referring to was all the "typical atheist..." "typical of how atheists..."
"I cant get these atheists to..." "theists to a higher standard". Four legs good, two legs bad.

Those, and the dig at me personally are what I was commenting on. Its not on topic, and its hardly necessary as an element of counterargument.
Its just indulgence in stereotyping.
Im sure that would be clear enough if I indulged in counter examples of brainless things that I observe from some, and present thos as being 'typical Christian".

Its not the quality of discourse I was coming to expect to see here.

[RickD]

Is it good Christian practice to try to boost yourself
with any sort of mean spirited insults and falsehoods for
people you dont know, just because they dont happen to
buy into your religion?

No, it is a sign of NOT ENOUGH Christ in our lives.

Of course I know that it is not good practice. I do know a fair number of Christians who I admire very much for their character and how they put their faith into practice.

Some nominal Christians are everything that is being said here, about all atheists.

In general this forum seems to be a lot better calibre than to host a thread like this one.

The thread subject is perfectly fine Audie.
Many Christians do not know how to answer these issues by skeptics, even though none of them are new and have been addressed many times over the ages.

Sometimes people simply don't know how to do the research needed, that'a all.

I was not saying there is anything wrong with the subject.

The calibre I was referring to was all the "typical atheist..." "typical of how atheists..."
"I cant get these atheists to..." "theists to a higher standard". Four legs good, two legs bad.

Those, and the dig at me personally are what I was commenting on. Its not on topic, and its hardly necessary as an element of counterargument.
Its just indulgence in stereotyping.
Im sure that would be clear enough if I indulged in counter examples of brainless things that I observe from some, and present thos as being 'typical Christian".

Its not the quality of discourse I was coming to expect to see here.

Audie,

When I hear someone say something about a "typical" anything, I take it to mean typical as far as what that person has encountered.

Like for example, If someone tells me that the typical creationist is stupid because he believes the earth is 6,000 years old, I take it to mean that this person has spoken to Young Earth Creationists. So, I would have to question this person a little more. Like saying, "define creationist".