Christians, what are your arguments against non-christian forms of theism?
I've seen plenty of christian arguments against atheism/for the existence of god but I rarely see any reasons why I should believe in the christian god in particular rather than be a muslim/hindu/pantheist/polytheist/deist.
Hard mode: no presupposing biblical authority
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
The historicity of the nativity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus
Any non-christian will counter this with their specific narrative
You mean like the story of Mohammed, or like personal experience?
Yep, Muslims will tell you that the Quran is miraculous, and any denomination of Christianity that you don't happen to belong to will tell you that theirs is the only correct interpretation
The Quran is evidently erroneous while the christian bible is not
Spurious. The entire OT is anti historical drivel.
What's the evidence that those things actually happened as described in the bible? If you're going to cite the biblical account as evidence then what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
Accepting the philosophical proposition that a god exists and accepting falsifiable historical events are two different things.
>If you're going to cite the biblical account as evidence then what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
Because they are testimonies of multiple people who died for this message.
Jihadis will die for Islam, does that make Islam correct?
They didn't die to prove a testimony. They died to prove their dedication and I have absolutely no doubts they did have dedication.
>They didn't die to prove a testimony.
Ask a jihadi, he'll have a different opinion
Really? And what testimony would that be? That they saw Muhammad talk to Gabriel? Tell me more.
Lol they die to prove their dedication, it is something they are pretty explicit about. There is no historical claim they are claiming to have witnessed that is behind their death.
>Really? And what testimony would that be?
Amongst other things that Jesus was merely a prophet
is no historical claim they are claiming to have witnessed that is behind their death.
>Jesus
QED. There is no witness account.
I am absolutely ok with the fact that they died for their religion and that they had dedication and faith in it. Doesn't mean shit to my argument, because my argument isn't "someone died for Christianity". My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue.
That a muslim somewhere blew up about a thing he couldn't really know is not a counter-argument.
You'll have to ask someone who argued "if ppl die for it, it's viable" lol
>My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue
How do you know this?
they wrote about it
>they wrote about it
They wrote about their own death?
>That's what happened to Christians over the first three centuries.
The question is about the eyewitnesses though.
That's what happened to Christians over the first three centuries.
>witnessed the Glory of God
Rarely. Again, Muhammad himself in the Quran never sees God even once. For a Muslim to claim he's witnessed God's Glory is usually figurative and even when it isn't, I'm fine with them having had an experience they believe was God.
>i can't tell if you're engaging in reductivism
I take it you're not the person who a minte ago reduced my argument to "ppl die fo religion"? That would be extremely ironic. If you have no arguments, I suggest not to reply on a hypothetical realm of religious affairs, at least not before you actually understand the argument you're facing.
They absolutely can. Again and again, a muslim blowing himself up over something he never witnessed is no threat to me. There's no shortage of people who die for things they don't know. But there absolutely is a shortage of people who die instead of admitting they made something up.
>They absolutely can.
No, because I'm using your own logic, you fricking moron. 'Proposition X is true because people die for it', which you suddenly don't accept when it's used against you. From this I conclude that your belief is garbage and that you are a stupid motherfricker
>'Proposition X is true because people die for it'
Not my logic. I would only be repeating myself at this point so if you don't understand what I've said, then I guess this is where your journey ends with me.
No, you're just wrong, and a fricking moron
Sure thing. It's not like I've clarified multiple times that "anything is true if you die for it" isn't my argument lol. Not like I brought up examples. Not like I addressed specific cases. It just so happens that I'm stupid for making a historical argument and the best way to debunk it was "but a muslim blew himself up over something he heard".
Nothing moronic about not tolerating the weakest pseudo-argument atheists ever had: "What if someone else had said it" lol
>all witnesses
Yeah having an experience is not what that kind of witnessing means. Imagine making such a basic mistake.
>don't need to see god
Perhaps it has eluded you, but the point of comparison was Muhammad. And again, he has not seen even God's Glory in the Quran either, which if you want to believe is detached from God, feel free.
You fail to respond to the points I'm making, you're just arguing based off of superficial knowledge.
>It's not like I've clarified multiple times that "anything is true if you die for it" isn't my argument lol. Not like I brought up examples. Not like I addressed specific cases. It just so happens that I'm stupid for making a historical argument and the best way to debunk it was "but a muslim blew himself up over something he heard".
Correct. You didn't do any of this. You just pretended the two are totally different without ever explaining why
If you missed it please see
The points being made is that a historical witness testimony is likely to be true if maintained under a death threat. Not a single person who died in Jihad made a historical witness testimony. It's not just about a person dying for a claim, because a person dying for something they couldn't actually know is meaningless.
>The points being made is that a historical witness testimony is likely to be true if maintained under a death threat.
And is 'Muhammed is God's final prophet' a historical claim and were the first jihadists under the threat of death?
It is something they couldn't know, since God's prophet can't be reliably recognized by a commoner whatsoever. Hence it's not a historical witness testimony, no.
>It is something they couldn't know, since God's prophet can't be reliably recognized by a commoner whatsoever.
And how do you know this isn't just as true for Christianity? Did Paul ever meet Jesus? Where does most of the story of Christianity come from?
Paul saw him in a vision, and since it's Paul himself testifying of what he himself witnessed, I would count his insistence until death as the same thing as other apostles insisting their witness accoutns are valid.
If you don't want to do that, I'm fine with only considering Matthew etc.
>I would count his insistence until deat
We have no evidence that this occurred.
>as the same thing as other apostles
We have no evidence that this occurred.
>Rarely
You do not need to see god to see god's glory. Imagine making such a basic mistake. They are all witness, and they testify to that through bloodshed.
Which again, you would have known this if you shut the frick up for a second, left the thread to actually go give even a mild skim over jihadist rhetoric and came back. But you can't even do that.
This isn't an argument. It's you digging your pit deeper.
>My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue.
Yes, and my argument is that someone would rather strap some bombs around him and blow himself up, rather than call your testaments true, so by your own logic, they can't be true
>They didn't die to prove a testimony
they absolutely did homie, have you ever even listened to the shit that comes out of their mouth and their cleric's mouths?
I did. See
They don't testify to anything they've witnessed. They testify to their dedication. And they absolutely achieve this testament via their death.
they testify to having witnessed the glory of god, having been driven to ecstasy and are proof that his righteous wrath is to be feared
i can't tell if you're engaging in reductivism or if you're just generally incapable of understand how wildly perspectives and "anchors" of interpretation vary between cultures, but either way it's clear you don't actually know a whole lot about the state of religious affairs outside of the very tiny slice of pauline christianity. my recommendation when coming into a topic that you are ill-equipped to actually engage with in a meaningful format is that you listen and learn so you might be able to contribute something next time. otherwise you simply denigrate your own position by making yourself look a fool. i tell you this only because you're engaging in a sin by breaking the third commandment.
>what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
This isn't how history works but it's an ancient, well preserved source with thousands of surviving manuscript copies, it's written (much of it, talking about the NT) in historical prose, and hundreds of witnesses throughout the centuries treat it as history.
We're already presupposing theism in this discussion, so why would you presume this text to be totally unreliable?
>because I said so
>because I don't like 'em
>because people died for it!
>please don't bring up all the people who died for heinous cults and political regimes
embarrassing. this is why the catalog has "why do muh gaytheist" threads 24/7. their low IQ goes on full display when met with someone who who is of a different religion.
don't bring up all the people who died for heinous cults and political regimes
Please do. These points will fail just like your post fails to address
and
.
so communism is a viable and just system because people died for it? is this what christcucks actually believe?
This isn't an argument, and I'm not trying to pass it off as one, since I don't actually have one I can think of and my own personal reason for being Christian, as opposed to another religion, is that Christianity specifically is the belief I was lead to after a lifetime of atheism, but I wanted to mention: an important distinction to make is that Christians (and it's likely same for most religions) don't actually believe that other religions are flat out make-believe, I'm sure the people of those other religions have experienced what they claim to (for the most part), rather the canonical Christian view is that other religions are the result of people worshipping lower deities than God, usually demons, who they have simply come to believe are the highest beings either through the trickery of those beings (again, typical demon stuff) or simply lack of knowledge of any higher beings. So you'll likely find most Christian arguments center around identifying other Gods as being remarkably similar to demons.
They are all degenerations of the one truth.
>muslim
Muhammad is a guy who never saw God and nobody who did agreed with him. He's neither a prophet nor a verified source. Christianity has dozens of people who were in touch with God across centuries, all testifying to the same thing.
>hindu
>polytheist
Polytheism is inferior because the source of reality must be One God as per both the revelations and the contingency argument. The few brands of hinduism that actually do approximate something of a monotheist framework are surpassed in every regard by Christianity - in consistency, in practice, in results etc.
>pantheist
Pointless philosophical label
>deist
Revelation.
The atheistic mind cannot grasp "dying for your words" so it regresses to the closest thing it knows - "dying for an institution".
The perfection of the Scriptures mean they could only be authored by the only perfect Being. If Christianity had flaws, it would only be an imperfect or partial revelation, but it doesn't. Obviously I'm not going to go over every verse and dogma, but if a Moslem or deist has something he's hung up over, he is free to point it out.
>The perfection of the Quran means they could only be authored by the only perfect Being. If Islam had flaws, it would only be an imperfect or partial revelation, but it doesn't. Obviously I'm not going to go over every verse and dogma, but if a Christian or deist has something he's hung up over, he is free to point it out.
Yes, you would have to respond to that too if it was posted. Don't have a response?
Are you being moronic on purpose, or are you just genuinely moronic?
Least moronic atheist.
Nice non-argument
Like what you posted? Essentially
?
No, like 'I'll magically reject my own logic when it's used to prove a completely different religion based on differences I never explain or demonstrate'.
No magic involved in the same logic applying to different bodies of claims with different results lmao. Again, just because to you they seem the same doesn't mean the argument yields the same conclusions for them.
The point of my post was that you can't prove a whole religion is completely flawless in its doctrines and scriptures in a single post but I was willing to reply to any perceived flaws anyone brought up. You then proceeded to give two totally braindead replies that have nothing to do with any of that.
>>>It's a question of consistency and individual arguments
>>Haha but other theories are also claiming they are consistent!! How could I ever make sense of it all?! Not like I can check.
>Nooooo but if someone else had said this I would have trouble making sense of it
Damn, you're so right, atheists. Time to ditch the cross because you guys are confused lmao.
>I've seen plenty of christian arguments against atheism/for the existence of god
I'm a Christian, and I would like to read more arguments for the existence of God, cna you please post some of those arguments?
Christianity can account for all other religions theology. Vice versa isn't true.
How so? It seems like both christians and non-christians can say that the other is wrong.
My argument wasn't about who says what is wrong. My argument was that one system can account for another, but the other can only partially explain the former. That is objective.
can you give an example? I don't fully understand your point.
For example some pagan religions have a so-called "Deus Otiosus" narrative, where a creator God has departed from his creation and they are now managed by smaller deities or not managed at all. Christians can account for this by the fact that after the Tower of Babel, God ceased to govern all nations and handed them over to smaller spirits. After Christ, the spirits would either give the nations back or die. From the perspective of individual tribes, this would be a deus otiosus. And Christians have the theology to bridge from Christianity to these theological systems. But those same pagan religions cannot account for the fact that God had a Son and that he reclaims the world. They don't have the theology to understand that.
Where's that Anon who knows a whole lot about the state of religious affairs but at the end always reverts to "what if someone else said it"?
I could present arguments, but honestly, my faith is mostly centered around a deep, rock solid certainty Christ rose from the dead.