NationStates Jolt Archive

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!








good luck

Can any see any point in this thread?

i repeat, point in this thread!





Good luck!

Well, a good arguement I've heard is that if God is so omnipotent, so omniscient, then why does He need US to worship Him? That need denotes an ego, which is a human flaw. And being that God is supposed to be perfect, this pretty well puts a good dent in the arguement forChristianity, or religion in general for that matter. I'm Christian and I wholeheartedly believe in the Truth of the Bible, but this had me scratching my head... what IF we all stopped believeing... just thought I'd share that little arguement with ya.

well, there seem to be about a bajillion people here who believe they have credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible. i'd like to hear it

well, there seem to be about a bajillion people here who believe they have credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible. i'd like to hear it

A walk through any natural-history museum will provide that for you.

A walk through any natural-history museum will provide that for you.

You mean God didn't create animals? And if God was omnipotent, couldn't he -create- stuff older than the age of the Earth? Hmm....

I think the onus is on you to prove that he exists....seeing as hes invisible and all.

Ok, how can someone put a stick in water and make a whole river turn red?

genisis stuff, like noah living to 600 years old

A theory needs to be proven, not disproven. I think Nietschze(sp!) had a good point when he said that he could not believe in a god demanding constant worship.

God exist in the fact that man believes in him. If you believe hard enough in something you will think its there, it will exist. That needs not to be proven. What needs to be proven is that there is some actual deity overlooking the world, THE god.

A cult of personality is hardly super human. For all I care it's as great as the Kims of North Korea, or Stalin.

The "proof" can be interpreted in many ways. A religious person can always claim that if something seem its illogical it is the work of god. Atheists are required to conduct studies to disprove the theories of the religious community.

Many historians agree that the bible is based a lot on oral traditions, especially the old testament. One interesting fact is that the part of the world concerned by the bible was very good at record keeping, yet some cities and places in the bible are not known ever to have existed, from other sources. The fact that up to 70 different authors wrote the bible and it holds contradictions also makes you wonder.

The bible records Jesus saying that people should be forgiving but in the same book people are told to be vengeful. The reason is that it was written by people of different beliefs. If you would gather 50 great authors of today and have them write a "bible" it would have similar faults.

You prove god. Heck, maybe the Greeks believed in the true gods. Or the Norse. You cannot know.

One interesting thing is that in biblical times a miracle happened everyday. Today we have not seen what can be confirmed to be miracles. When someone is suddenly cured from some disease some will claim its a miracle, which is not likely to be proven. I think there would have been records of VERY strange happenings if miracles happened.

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!








good luck

Well, if you take the Bible for face value because of faith, this is obviously impossible. If this is what you believe in simply because it's what you believe in then you're untouchable.

If, however, you're looking for a dose of logic and reason, the game changes a bit. Consider that most of the stories told in the Bible exist only in the Bible and nowhere else with a few welcome exceptions cropping up in places like the Dead Sea scrolls and the like. There is, for example, no written history of Jews being enslaved by Egyptians outside the Bible. None.

The way I see it, there is little credible evidence against Cristianity or the Bible. But there is much fewer credible evidence for it.

Ok, how can someone put a stick in water and make a whole river turn red?
ive seen a couple milligrams o'chemical turn a gallon purple so it the stick was that stuff and just dissolved i could see it happening

Ok, how can someone put a stick in water and make a whole river turn red?

Chemistry is fun.

A theory needs to be proven, not disproven. I think Nietschze(sp!) had a good point when he said that he could not believe in a god demanding constant worship.

God exist in the fact that man believes in him. If you believe hard enough in something you will think its there, it will exist. That needs not to be proven. What needs to be proven is that there is some actual deity overlooking the world, THE god.

A cult of personality is hardly super human. For all I care it's as great as the Kims of North Korea, or Stalin.

The "proof" can be interpreted in many ways. A religious person can always claim that if something seem its illogical it is the work of god. Atheists are required to conduct studies to disprove the theories of the religious community.

Many historians agree that the bible is based a lot on oral traditions, especially the old testament. One interesting fact is that the part of the world concerned by the bible was very good at record keeping, yet some cities and places in the bible are not known ever to have existed, from other sources. The fact that up to 70 different authors wrote the bible and it holds contradictions also makes you wonder.

The bible records Jesus saying that people should be forgiving but in the same book people are told to be vengeful. The reason is that it was written by people of different beliefs. If you would gather 50 great authors of today and have them write a "bible" it would have similar faults.

You prove god. Heck, maybe the Greeks believed in the true gods. Or the Norse. You cannot know.

One interesting thing is that in biblical times a miracle happened everyday. Today we have not seen what can be confirmed to be miracles. When someone is suddenly cured from some disease some will claim its a miracle, which is not likely to be proven. I think there would have been records of VERY strange happenings if miracles happened.Funny... alot of people on this forum say that the Scientific process's main purpose is to "Disprove" theories yet when asked to use the Scientific Process to Disprove God... they end up retorting for the Proof of his exsistance...

As for Proof of God's exsistance, The Bible. Granted as a Many-times-over Translated account of Eye Witness events of eons ago during a time when Documentation and Preservation of such Eye Witness events were practically non-exsistant, the Details are sketchy and at times, may be contradictory, however I've yet to see disproven here the many Miracles of Jesus that occured. First: the Resurrection. Second: the Raising of Lazerus, and Third: the Healings of the Blind, Sick and Dying by Jesus, and Forth... for alot of bunk and "hard scientific evidence" Christianity (in genereal, faiths including Islam and Jewish persuasion are also lumped in this since basically it's the same God we all worship.) is still the largest and fastest growning religion out there. For all the scandals and contradictions, it's the religion that still does the most good.

ive seen a couple milligrams o'chemical turn a gallon purple so it the stick was that stuff and just dissolved i could see it happening
"Lo, and Noah's stick did dissolved, and the water turned a funny sort of pale red. Everything upstream, oddly, was still clear, but lo, smite the unbeliever who dares to claim otherwise, for this is the word of the LORD, our GOD."

ive seen a couple milligrams o'chemical turn a gallon purple so it the stick was that stuff and just dissolved i could see it happeningExcept the stick didn't disolve... it fact, that same stick was turned into a snake and devoured two other snakes.

"Lo, and Noah's stick did dissolved, and the water turned a funny sort of pale red. Everything upstream, oddly, was still clear, but lo, smite the unbeliever who dares to claim otherwise, for this is the word of the LORD, our GOD."er... Moses... Noah had the Ark... :rolleyes:

er... Moses... Noah had the Ark... :rolleyes:

Heritic.

As far as the resurrection goes about the most you have to go on at this point is that Christ's tomb was empty when the Romans checked it out: this much has been verified at least. Unfortunately, an empty tomb does not guarantee a re-animated corpse.

I must confess I find puzzling the propensity for Christians to accept the Bible as an article of logic rather than an article of faith. For example, if you read an article that said America invaded the moon 100 years ago, but could not find any corraborating evidence no matter how hard you tried, would you really believe it?

Same thing with the eyewitness accounts. If so many men are sinners, why have the Christians trusted us to maintain the Bible as it had originally been? For 2000 years?

Funny... alot of people on this forum say that the Scientific process's main purpose is to "Disprove" theories yet when asked to use the Scientific Process to Disprove God... they end up retorting for the Proof of his exsistance...

As for Proof of God's exsistance, The Bible. Granted as a Many-times-over Translated account of Eye Witness events of eons ago during a time when Documentation and Preservation of such Eye Witness events were practically non-exsistant, the Details are sketchy and at times, may be contradictory, however I've yet to see disproven here the many Miracles of Jesus that occured. First: the Resurrection. Second: the Raising of Lazerus, and Third: the Healings of the Blind, Sick and Dying by Jesus, and Forth... for alot of bunk and "hard scientific evidence" Christianity (in genereal, faiths including Islam and Jewish persuasion are also lumped in this since basically it's the same God we all worship.) is still the largest and fastest growning religion out there. For all the scandals and contradictions, it's the religion that still does the most good.

Okay... a tertiary source such as the Bible will NEVER EVER stand up in a debate with scientists. Simple truth is that because the Bible has been translated over and over again and invariably has been changed by it's translators to suit their own purposes. And as for the miralces... prove that they did occur with some other source OTHER than the Bible, then. And last I checked the Jewish Faith and Christianity are somewhat related and Islam is nothing like either of them really... could be wrong, but it's early for me.. so meh.

If I would say I have magic powers you would want me to prove that, you surely wouldn't take my word for it.

You cannot actually prove anything in the bible. The eyewitness accounts are very, well unreliable. You cannot just run around claiming that a book is truth because it claims it is.

I again am suspicious at the fact that many events, people, and places in the bible is not found in records from the time.

Well, if you take the Bible for face value because of faith, this is obviously impossible. If this is what you believe in simply because it's what you believe in then you're untouchable.

If, however, you're looking for a dose of logic and reason, the game changes a bit. Consider that most of the stories told in the Bible exist only in the Bible and nowhere else with a few welcome exceptions cropping up in places like the Dead Sea scrolls and the like. There is, for example, no written history of Jews being enslaved by Egyptians outside the Bible. None.

The way I see it, there is little credible evidence against Cristianity or the Bible. But there is much fewer credible evidence for it.This I agree with. Because Faith and Belief occure without the Lack of Hard Proof. Once Evidence become known, then it's know Faith and Belief, but Fact and Knowledge. You won't hear anyone say "I believe the Earth is round." they say, "I know that the Earth is Round."

You mean God didn't create animals? And if God was omnipotent, couldn't he -create- stuff older than the age of the Earth? Hmm....

So earth is like a junk drawer for failed projects?

So earth is like a junk drawer for failed projects?

Who says they failed? How pessimistic...

Who says they failed? How pessimistic...

Well...We don't have any dinosaurs, hence they failed.

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!

The Bible says pi = 3. It also says locusts have 4 legs, rabbits (or hyraxes, passage is unclear) chew cud, and bats are birds.

Also, by the OT, Jesus could not be the Messiah, because there are several prophecies that he does not fulfill.

Such as being descended from David, or giving the Hebrews a land of their own, or ending war, et cetera.

Well...We don't have any dinosaurs, hence they failed.
There are more species of living dinosaurs than there are of living mammals. One species tastes just like chicken.

The bible proves God exists. But who says the bible is right? God.

Its claims something exists, and then uses that being to say that its right. So it claims to prove itself...with absolutely no other evidence. So excuse me if im a little sceptical

There are more species of living dinosaurs than there are of living mammals. One species tastes just like chicken.

But the big ones aren't around...They failed. Unless of course you're refering to the heretic "theory" of evolution in which case you should be burned at the stake for spreading filthy lies.

Well...We don't have any dinosaurs, hence they failed.

No. Fate dictated that they were not to exist anymore. Their destruction was not their fault. If anything can be considered a failed project, it would be humans for destroying the planet that God gave us and other things that happen here on a daily basis... but that's it. And I don't think we're failed... just lost.

God wants everyone to have faith in him (otherwise he wouldn't threaten unbelievers with hell)

He is also loving.

But he didn't provide humans with the bible until quite a few people had already died. So he condemned them to hell (as well as all peoples outside of europe and the middle east until a few hundred years ago).

Therefore he is a git.

But he is supposed to be all good and all loving, so he cannot be a git.

So he cannot exist.

Okay... a tertiary source such as the Bible will NEVER EVER stand up in a debate with scientists. Simple truth is that because the Bible has been translated over and over again and invariably has been changed by it's translators to suit their own purposes. And as for the miralces... prove that they did occur with some other source OTHER than the Bible, then. And last I checked the Jewish Faith and Christianity are somewhat related and Islam is nothing like either of them really... could be wrong, but it's early for me.. so meh.
1) the visions of Medjugorje (http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm)

2) Documented miracles invloving the Eucharst (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html)

3) All the personal accounts of people surviving against the odds. while you can attribute them to science, then why isn't it all prevasive? People coming out of Comas, NDE (Near Death Experiences) some people having cancer/tumors suddenly reverse itself...

AWRIGHT, KNOCK IT OFF!

Look, all you strangely self-righteous atheists need to leave the believers alone and get on with life.

Similarly, all of you holier-than-thou Christians need to understand your faith is YOURS alone and that it can't and shouldn't fit everyone. Stop telling the non-believers what to do and get on with life.

Sorry, but I am sick to the teeth of this whole argument because there's no point in arguing it! Nobody really cares what anyone else believes beyond the desire to tell the others that they're wrong and are either pious fools or BOUND for the lake of fire.

WHO CARES!










This plea for sanity brought to you by People Against Condescending Paternalism.

Such as being descended from David, or giving the Hebrews a land of their own, or ending war, et cetera.

I believe a reading of Matthew chapter 1 will explain how Jesus was very much decended from David. If you're trying to say that because he was born of a Virgin that then he is not from David, this is incorrect because he was addopted by Joseph who was decended from David. According to Jewish adoption laws he recieves full rights and priviliges of being a true son of Joseph.

As for outside evidence of the Old Testament this is an interesting yet illogical mistake people make when trying to proove something. Lack of documented historical evidence at this time period cannot be used to suggest that things did not exist, because it was a period of time that we have very little documented historical evidence. Along these lines every time scientists attempt to say that there is no evidence, golly gee some turns up. Allow me to explain.

1) For years people said that because the Bible refers to the Hitites and they can be found nowhere else then the Bible must be wrong. Further archilogical evidece was found later which showed the Hitites did indeed exist.

2) The Bible was believed to have changed numerous times over its existance because it was passed between translators and languages and just plain copied word for word. When the dead sea scrolls were found it has been shown that the Bible of today is about 99.9% the same as the Bible written on these scrolls from thousands of years ago, and that none of the changes affect a single bit of doctrine (that means teaching for those of you who don't know).

3) Someone mentioned earlier in the forum that evidence of the Hebrews being captured by Egypt does not exist - this is actually untrue. Careful archilogical excavation has shown that dwellings lived in by Hebrews in the Palestine region when they first came to prominence (ironically enough the precise time that the OT says they took over the land) are of the same form as those in Goshen (the Nile Delta region) at around the time right before the Exodus. These dwellings then stop abruptly showing a likely exodus of people. There are other signs in that area but my memory does not serve me well enough to recall them.

4) Keeping with Exodus ideas I'll give you some evidence of a Red Sea crossing. First thing that is necessary is to understand that much of what was originally (aka Catholic tradition) thought to be true was just used to control the people. In this I am refering to the question of where the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, and where Mt. Sinia(sp) is. So in order to understand that these places exist you must first realize that surfing the internet for these places will probably show you the traditional and incorrect locations. With that being said, there is a location (if anyone is interested in the exact location I can show them) which the mountains and the sea acurately representes what is described in the OT. It is on the right extension of the Red Sea and not the traditional thought. The sea in this area is a very deep valey. On the shore there is an outcropping of sandy beach which is just large enough to hold 2 million people, but the interesting thing is, that from that beach across to the other side there is an area of flat sandy ground, which extends the entire distance and is wide enough to travel on. This is not exactly the most interesting thing however. A careful look at the sea floor in this area show coral. Coral is an interesting thing and it needs something hard to form on. Then whatever it is on, wood or other things, disentigrate, and all that is left is the coral - but the coral retains the shape of the object. Scattered throughout the sea floor are wheel-like coral formations and countless axle designs, etc. They are scattered, and appear as if some sort of chariot bound army was swallowed up by the sea.


See the problem here is that you all assume that there is no evidence, when in fact you have not sought the evidence out. The evidence is out there, and often it is right before all of our eyes, but its going to ultimately come down to - do you believe, or do you not believe. That is the ultimate question and I don't think that any forum of this type is going to change anyone's minds.

1) the visions of Medjugorje (http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm)

2) Documented miracles invloving the Eucharst (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html)

3) All the personal accounts of people surviving against the odds. while you can attribute them to science, then why isn't it all prevasive? People coming out of Comas, NDE (Near Death Experiences) some people having cancer/tumors suddenly reverse itself...

1 - seems no more credible than UFO stories

2 - none of those 'miracles' have been scientifically investigated since at least 1950, and the investigations have been dominated by clergy, not scientists.

3 - spontaneous remission happens. New agers claim crystals caused theirs, health nuts claim it was the vitamins. Until you provide proof that religion beats cancer I will put it down to wishful thinking.

AWRIGHT, KNOCK IT OFF!

Look, all you strangely self-righteous atheists need to leave the believers alone and get on with life.

Similarly, all of you holier-than-thou Christians need to understand your faith is YOURS alone and that it can't and shouldn't fit everyone. Stop telling the non-believers what to do and get on with life.

Sorry, but I am sick to the teeth of this whole argument because there's no point in arguing it! Nobody really cares what anyone else believes beyond the desire to tell the others that they're wrong and are either pious fools or BOUND for the lake of fire.

WHO CARES!

[/SIZE]

if you dont like the debate, then there is a good solution, shouldnt be that hard to figure out :rolleyes:

well, there seem to be about a bajillion people here who believe they have credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible. i'd like to hear it
If you're looking for a scientific argument, Plex, then I don't think we can help you. As far as I know, the construct of god is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science is a method, and it's not designed for arguing the existence of god, any more than cooking techniques are designed for feats of engineering.

On the other hand, one could philosophically speculate that the bible is a religious text influenced by the politcial climate of its original authorship and countless translations. As far as I can possibly understand, if I was in a deeply prayerful state of mind and wrote a religious piece, that piece would still be flavoured with my idiosyncratic vocabluary and sense of humour. God may well have worked in man, but humans are beings of free will, and god has given them freedom from his complete control.

Alternatively, one may study the bible for claims that, in any other context, seem highly unbelievable. While most people today don't dispute the existence of Jesus because of the plentiful historical accounts of his life, I am incredibly suspicious of outrageous allegations about virgin birth, or Jesus being god incarnate. Those two doctrines clash with my understanding of biology and my construct of god respectively.

We can't step back in time to find these things out, all we can do is try and understand the world as it is in the present, and extrapolate our findings to historical accounts. Hopefully by doing so, the essential message of Christianity won't be weakened, but rather strengthened as we realise that the characters of the bible were real people just like us.

No. Fate dictated that they were not to exist anymore. Their destruction was not their fault. If anything can be considered a failed project, it would be humans for destroying the planet that God gave us and other things that happen here on a daily basis... but that's it. And I don't think we're failed... just lost.

If I make a paper-airplane that doesn't fly, that means I'm crap at making paper airplanes.

AWRIGHT, KNOCK IT OFF!

Look, all you strangely self-righteous atheists need to leave the believers alone and get on with life.

Similarly, all of you holier-than-thou Christians need to understand your faith is YOURS alone and that it can't and shouldn't fit everyone. Stop telling the non-believers what to do and get on with life.

Sorry, but I am sick to the teeth of this whole argument because there's no point in arguing it! Nobody really cares what anyone else believes beyond the desire to tell the others that they're wrong and are either pious fools or BOUND for the lake of fire.

WHO CARES!

This plea for sanity brought to you by People Against Condescending Paternalism.

A forum is a place where people debate things.

Did you think we were working a cure for cancer?

If you don't like a certain type of thread -- DON'T READ IT!

But shouting at other people to shut up and not discuss something they enjoy discussing is the epitome of Condescending Paternalism.

If you're looking for a scientific argument, Plex, then I don't think we can help you. As far as I know, the construct of god is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science is a method, and it's not designed for arguing the existence of god, any more than cooking techniques are designed for feats of engineering.

On the other hand, one could philosophically speculate that the bible is a religious text influenced by the politcial climate of its original authorship and countless translations. As far as I can possibly understand, if I was in a deeply prayerful state of mind and wrote a religious piece, that piece would still be flavoured with my idiosyncratic vocabluary and sense of humour. God may well have worked in man, but humans are beings of free will, and god has given them freedom from his complete control.

Alternatively, one may study the bible for claims that, in any other context, seem highly unbelievable. While most people today don't dispute the existence of Jesus because of the plentiful historical accounts of his life, I am incredibly suspicious of outrageous allegations about virgin birth, or Jesus being god incarnate. Those two doctrines clash with my understanding of biology and my construct of god respectively.

We can't step back in time to find these things out, all we can do is try and understand the world as it is in the present, and extrapolate our findings to historical accounts. Hopefully by doing so, the essential message of Christianity won't be weakened, but rather strengthened as we realise that the characters of the bible were real people just like us.

What plentiful accounts of Jesus life. There is, to my knowledge, nothing beyond;

The canonical gospels,
the non-canonical gospels,
a forged section of Josephus,
one mention of a 'Chrestus' in Tactitus, who never visited Judaea.

Got any actual sources?

If I make a paper-airplane that doesn't fly, that means I'm crap at making paper airplanes.

good one ;)

A forum is a place where people debate things.

Did you think we were working a cure for cancer?

If you don't like a certain type of thread -- DON'T READ IT!

But shouting at other people to shut up and not discuss something they enjoy discussing is the epitome of Condescending Paternalism.

Okay, I cop to that. But my point is that it's the same arguments over and over again. Not only that, but the religious fervor with which the atheists defend themselves -- almost as if they NEED to be right in order to avoid the cultural fear of the afterlife they so desperately avoid believing in. The zealotry of the Christians is understandable and expected, but the close to childishness of a cornered atheist is amusing at best and troubling at worst.

I apologize for yelling -- I suppose it just gets under my skin and I felt a need to express myself. Hopefully this explanation will propel a new plank into this debate.

one of my posts from my "loving and just god thread": if you want credible evidence against the bible, just open its pages....

If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this perfect God created a perfect universe which was rendered imperfect by the perfect humans. (If that be the case) the ultimate source of imperfection is God...earth was NEVER perfect, because it was corruptable. HEAVEN is perfect, but we cant corrupt it. Why did god create the earth that can be corruptable, instead of creating heaven that couldnt?

Why wouldn't God just create those with freewill, whom He knew would eventually choose Him? If God is all-knowing and still created beings whom He would have to punish and in essence destroy for an eternity, why create them at all, unless God simply is evil? God would have to be evil and not truth; for truth is unchanging and eternal. How could a perfect God of truth unjustly create evil which must be destroyed? The creation of evil then would have come from Him? His fault, ultimately, if you believe traditional christian teachings.

"The bible is supposedly God's perfect word (as taught by traditional christian doctrines). It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which He is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in His infinite wisdom, He has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the bible, as a means for avoiding the hell which He has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal His wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect men, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect men. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self-contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet, the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which He has equipped us. Surely, the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal His perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man."

"One need look to no source other than the bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures His people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers, turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of His innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil King David for taking a census!? It was the same Yahweh who allowed the humas to slaughter his Son because the perfect Yahweh had botched His own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh."

"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it."

In other words, God could not change the future from what He knows it to be. Otherwise, the outcome would be different than what He formerly knew it to be.

God wants everyone to have faith in him (otherwise he wouldn't threaten unbelievers with hell)

He is also loving.

But he didn't provide humans with the bible until quite a few people had already died. So he condemned them to hell (as well as all peoples outside of europe and the middle east until a few hundred years ago).

Therefore he is a git.

But he is supposed to be all good and all loving, so he cannot be a git.

So he cannot exist.

wrong. people offered burnt sacrifices before Jesus came to eternally pay off the debt

1 - seems no more credible than UFO storiesDon't know and can't speak for everyone... but I believe there is Life on Other planets... and the proof of their intelligence is the fact that they made no real move to contact us. and note that fact that more people travel there and report what they've seen then those UFO sightings.

2 - none of those 'miracles' have been scientifically investigated since at least 1950, and the investigations have been dominated by clergy, not scientists.The Clergy and others have investigated every report of Miracles... including Medjugorje and couldn't disprove those either. and the Church still investigates all reports of Miracles... and they disprove alot of em.


3 - spontaneous remission happens. New agers claim crystals caused theirs, health nuts claim it was the vitamins. Until you provide proof that religion beats cancer I will put it down to wishful thinking.But no one found the causes for these Spontaneous Remissions. so why not Religion. Can't be Vitamins or the "Cancer Cure" would've been found already. so... can Science now explain?

Funny... alot of people on this forum say that the Scientific process's main purpose is to "Disprove" theories yet when asked to use the Scientific Process to Disprove God... they end up retorting for the Proof of his exsistance...
Spoken like someone with no familiarity of scientific methodology. In order for science to disprove god, someone has to prepare a testable theory of god. I think that onus is on the believer, as they have so much to gain from it. Until a testable theory of god is developed, god is not a scientific subject, and no amount of religious text will demonstrate otherwise.
That said, I believe in god, and I find your christianocentric view rather arrogant and dismissive of other spiritual paths which can reconcile all the benefits of science, like medicine and computers. Maybe you should pray about that.

wrong. people offered burnt sacrifices before Jesus came to eternally pay off the debt

What people? The Aztecs? The Celts? The Aboriginees?

How about all those since Jesus who hadn't seen the bible?

Americans before Columbus, East Asians, Africans...

AWRIGHT, KNOCK IT OFF!

Look, all you strangely self-righteous atheists need to leave the believers alone and get on with life.

Similarly, all of you holier-than-thou Christians need to understand your faith is YOURS alone and that it can't and shouldn't fit everyone. Stop telling the non-believers what to do and get on with life.

Sorry, but I am sick to the teeth of this whole argument because there's no point in arguing it! Nobody really cares what anyone else believes beyond the desire to tell the others that they're wrong and are either pious fools or BOUND for the lake of fire.

WHO CARES!*agreed










This plea for sanity brought to you by People Against Condescending Paternalism.
What has Paternalism done against you? A bit more of that would be nice, provided some Pat was pat, if ya know what I mean.

If I make a paper-airplane that doesn't fly, that means I'm crap at making paper airplanes.

Heh... but the dinosaurs worked... that's the thing. For 65 MILLION years they existed on earth... it was just time for a new age is all. Not failed, just past its prime.

wrong. people offered burnt sacrifices before Jesus came to eternally pay off the debt

Actually, neither burnt offerings nor following Old Testament Law existed to save people from their sins. Recall in James it says, "if you keep the whole law and offend in one point you are guilty of all."

The law and burnt offerings were examples of faith in the coming Messiah. The person could not possibly keep the law and be saved, nor could they offer up enough sacrifices to be saved. An Old Testament person desiring to go to Heaven had to have a genuine faith in God and the coming Messiah. Sacrifices were an "I'm sorry for the since I have committed most recently" sort of thing. Not until Jesus died on the cross and rose again were their sins truly and totally paid for. No sheep or cow could pay for their complete sins, only the Son of God could.

Incidentally if you're wondering, those who were believers in the OT would go to a place called Paradise until such time as Jesus paid for their sins and then they could go to Heaven.

Don't know and can't speak for everyone... but I believe there is Life on Other planets... and the proof of their intelligence is the fact that they made no real move to contact us. and note that fact that more people travel there and report what they've seen then those UFO sightings.

The Clergy and others have investigated every report of Miracles... including Medjugorje and couldn't disprove those either. and the Church still investigates all reports of Miracles... and they disprove alot of em.


But no one found the causes for these Spontaneous Remissions. so why not Religion. Can't be Vitamins or the "Cancer Cure" would've been found already. so... can Science now explain?

All those things provide no evidence for religion. It is just an easy fall back, like when no-one knew how rain clouds formed.

Define god and I will use reason to disprove it

Heh... but the dinosaurs worked... that's the thing. For 65 MILLION years they existed on earth... it was just time for a new age is all. Not failed, just past its prime.

It was longer than 65 million years, they became extinct 65 million years ago.

It was longer than 65 million years, they became extinct 65 million years ago.
No they didn't. Most branches became extinct, but one side branch remained, and has prospered.

It was longer than 65 million years, they became extinct 65 million years ago.
I stand corrected... what was it... like 250 Million? I'm at work and less than able to think logically right now :)

I stand corrected... what was it... like 250 Million? I'm at work and less than able to think logically right now :)
~225 mya to 65 mya. So, about 160 million years. 225 if you include birds.

Heh... but the dinosaurs worked... that's the thing. For 65 MILLION years they existed on earth... it was just time for a new age is all. Not failed, just past its prime.

They are gone, they didn't make it...Extinct. Since the point of most species is to survive, I'd say that ultimately they failed like so many species before and after them.
And I'd say that them surviving for 65 million years is a good arguement against the bible too.

They are gone, they didn't make it...Extinct
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. There are still about 9,000 extant species surviving. Most people just don't think of them as dinosaurs, but they are.

Ok, I won't be able to disprove someones definition of god as I have to go now. Maybe later.

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. There are still about 9,000 extant species surviving. Most people just don't think of them as dinosaurs, but they are.

If you're referring to lizards, amphibeans and such, I would say that the existance of modern day reptiles doesn't mean "dinosaurs still exist", because the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard" and quite frankly I'm not very scared by a pet newt.

However I have heard that Komodo dragons will kidnap humans, and we already know that crocodiles are very dangerous, so maybe.

They are gone, they didn't make it...Extinct. Since the point of most species is to survive, I'd say that ultimately they failed like so many species before and after them.
And I'd say that them surviving for 65 million years is a good arguement against the bible too.

Dude, life has to go on. Nothing is concrete. By your logic there are no successes, and how can you truly determine failure if there is no success. The only way something so huge as creation can fail is if it destroys itself... which hasn't happened since the beginning of existence.

And 65 million years is only a good arguement against a person who reads the Bible literally.. not one who would read it and make their own interpretations.

Funny... alot of people on this forum say that the Scientific process's main purpose is to "Disprove" theories yet when asked to use the Scientific Process to Disprove God... they end up retorting for the Proof of his exsistance...

As for Proof of God's exsistance, The Bible. Granted as a Many-times-over Translated account of Eye Witness events of eons ago during a time when Documentation and Preservation of such Eye Witness events were practically non-exsistant, the Details are sketchy and at times, may be contradictory, however I've yet to see disproven here the many Miracles of Jesus that occured. First: the Resurrection. Second: the Raising of Lazerus, and Third: the Healings of the Blind, Sick and Dying by Jesus, and Forth... for alot of bunk and "hard scientific evidence" Christianity (in genereal, faiths including Islam and Jewish persuasion are also lumped in this since basically it's the same God we all worship.) is still the largest and fastest growning religion out there. For all the scandals and contradictions, it's the religion that still does the most good.

it is not the largest religion but oh well

what i would like to see explained is how Jesus is supposed to be completely forgiving and everything and that God always forgives us for our sins and gives us second chances and then in Revelations it says that he rains fire down and does this and that yet why would he do that if he was forgiving? why would he want to kill us when we are his children according to other scriptures? do many of you out there think you would kill all your children if they werent up to your standards?
Revelations completely contradicts the rest of the bible and of course everything that was written down in the bible is the word of God, so why would God contradict himself? isnt the main purpose of the bible to allow us to understand his power and to show us what to believe? so if he is constantly contradicting himself how can we believe any of it?

Dude, life has to go on. Nothing is concrete. By your logic there are no successes, and how can you truly determine failure if there is no success. The only way something so huge as creation can fail is if it destroys itself... which hasn't happened since the beginning of existence.

And 65 million years is only a good arguement against a person who reads the Bible literally.. not one who would read it and make their own interpretations.

There are successes, the dinosaurs were a success for 65 million years before they failed. I'd say getting extinct is a failure.

And 65 million years is a good arguement against the bible, which is what was asked for. How can you believe in a book you KNOW to contain lies?

What plentiful accounts of Jesus life. There is, to my knowledge, nothing beyond;

The canonical gospels,
the non-canonical gospels,
a forged section of Josephus,
one mention of a 'Chrestus' in Tactitus, who never visited Judaea.

Got any actual sources?
Perhaps plentiful was a little optimistic. I wasn't aware of Josephus's writings being forged, however I will revise my previous understanding. Pliny the Younger made reference to Jesus in his description of the early Christians, and the Greek Lucian of Samosata also mentioned him briefly. Suetonious referred to him some years after the cruxifiction. There are a few wild theories that he spent part of his life in Britiain, and also travelled East, as some people speculate that he was heavily influenced by eastern religious thought. While these historical accounts may all be fabrications for the purpose of winning scalps for Jesus, I choose to believe that he did live and share his alternative approach to Judaism with his contemporaries. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not inclined to doggedly deny he existed out of disdain for Christianity. In a country occupied by foreign forces who denied the validity of the preexisting religious and political ideologies, I think it is immensley likely that you would find the odd political radical spreading dissent. While I don't believe that Jesus was the son of god, or that he rose from the dead, I also think it's likely that the Roman occupying forces would have used cruxificion as a deterrent for dissenters like Jesus, and I think the "Love Each Other" message is still a valuable one.

There are successes, the dinosaurs were a success for 65 million years before they failed. I'd say getting extinct is a failure.

And 65 million years is a good arguement against the bible, which is what was asked for. How can you believe in a book you KNOW to contain lies?

A natural end to an era is no failure at all... it's like finishing a good book. You didn't quit reading the book, you just finished what was written, and then you move on to another. Time progresses, and things must come to an end.

In what way IS 65 million years a good arguement? Not everything has to be set... the Bible is something to be interpreted as it has been throught the generations, translated and translated again. It has different meanings to different people... I mean, there IS such thing as metaphor after all.

id like to know how we were created immediately after the planet was created and all animals were created after us HOW COME DINOSAURS WERE AROUND FOR SO MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE US??????? (intelligent)humans have been around for like 10,000 years or something like that so umm about 300 million years of lies right there

there are several species of animals that have remained relatively untouched by evolution but it is not 9000 or whatever the dude above stated
there are some species of fish, reptiles, sharks, and when you say the time of dinosaurs then you think of when dinosaurs ruled the earth and everything and now you can just round off the number of species surviving today and say they are extinct

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!

good luck
Thanks to this first-of-its-kind NS post, any minute now the science-minded will stop relying on logic, evidence, and other silliness and blindly believe the internally inconsistent babblings of ancient, superstitious savages and be saved! Joy!

what i would like to see explained is how Jesus is supposed to be completely forgiving and everything and that God always forgives us for our sins and gives us second chances and then in Revelations it says that he rains fire down and does this and that yet why would he do that if he was forgiving? why would he want to kill us when we are his children according to other scriptures? do many of you out there think you would kill all your children if they werent up to your standards?

God is forgiving, to those who choose to believe in Him. Those who accept Jesus into their hearts and gain salvation, are forgiven of all their sins and will be caught up into the clouds prior to the damnation that occurs in Revelation. The children of God are those who believe in Him and have accepted His free gift of salvation not all the rest of humanity who will be destroyed in the end times.

God has given many second chances, to everyone in fact. But once the times spoke of in Revelation occur, then its too late. You missed your last chance and its all over. Similarly if you die without recieving salvation for your sins (and all it takes is one sin), then you're condemned to Hell. Your chance for a second chance is over. And quite realistically it makes sense that there be some finality at some point doesn't it?

no no no no no no no you are saying that all the people who choose to believe in him will be saved but thats true according to revelations

revelations says that he will take 1/3 of the world not the people that believe in him but 1/3 of the world

and also arent you forgetting purgatory? you said that if you have 1 sin you go to hell but it suposedly takes a lot to go to hell and purgatory is just for sitting while burning off your partial damnation

if god is so loving and just wants the best for all of us then why do such bad things happen to everyone? why would god let us start wars with each other if he has so much power? why would god let people like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin do the things they did? if there is a god wouldnt he do anything to help fix the mess of his world?

revelations says that he will take 1/3 of the world not the people that believe in him but 1/3 of the world
Correct 1/3 of the world, you obviously missed the point that believers will already be taken out of the world thereby leaving the world left full of non-believers, and people who believe after the start of the Tribulation.

In other words, those who are saved are gone, and everyone else is left to get the judgement of God. If people alive at that time do actually get saved (few will), then those people may die in the mass deaths spoken of in the Revelation, but then they will go to Heaven. Those who die and are not believers will go to Hell.

A natural end to an era is no failure at all... it's like finishing a good book. You didn't quit reading the book, you just finished what was written, and then you move on to another. Time progresses, and things must come to an end.

In what way IS 65 million years a good arguement? Not everything has to be set... the Bible is something to be interpreted as it has been throught the generations, translated and translated again. It has different meanings to different people... I mean, there IS such thing as metaphor after all.

If it's like a book, then you can never read that book again, ever. It wasn't a "natural end to an era", evidence indicates it was some kind of a catastrophic event that put an end to the dinosaurs.

The bible says we were "created" a few thousand years ago. That's what it says, and we know that's incorrect. If the bible uses such random things for metaphores, then it cannot be seen as accurate documentation of that era. Or god, for that matter. And you choose to believe "some" things in this hundred-times edited&translated book? If such random things are metaphores, then jesus could very well be a metaphor or an analogy.

Genesis 0:0

On the evening before God beganth his creating, he decided to make a single entity. He made the entity out of his hair clippings and named him Jesus. The next day, God gave Jesus a stopwatch and said "Time me". And thus, Jesus timed the lord on how long it took him to create. And when all was done, the lord turned to Jesus and said "Done". Jesus looked down at the stopwatch and spoketh "7 days flat". God smiled and put Jesus in his hand. "I won't be needing you for a while, my son", he spoke to the hairy entity. God crushed the entity made of hair and fashioned for himself, a toupe."

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!








good luck


Enter exhibit A: The Holy Bible itself. Kthxbai!

Enter exhibit A: The Holy Bible itself. Kthxbai!
OMGWTFBBQ! :eek:

OMGWTFBBQ! :eek:

Oh come now. It's like totally absurd and stuff.

To me, there is no credible argument FOR or AGAINST christianity. To those who don't believe, only the most persuasive believer can convert those who have it set in stone not to believe.

To those who do believe, it takes an equally persuasive non-believer to convince them that they're wrong.

It's a pointless debate in my opinion as it can never be prooven right or wrong. For every explanation or theory athiest and/or christians come up with, there's always a counter that can be argued.

The only thing that bothers me is the radical christians and radical athiest who can't put their differences aside to work together to help solve the current problems of the world. If that could happen, that alone would be a mild stone to the world.

Most credible evidence:

Other regilions, like the Jews, Moslems, Hindu, etc etc and... etc... And the fact that Christians are fanatic enough that they always think to have the only true religion.

Christians aren't the only ones, get that into your head.

If it's like a book, then you can never read that book again, ever. It wasn't a "natural end to an era", evidence indicates it was some kind of a catastrophic event that put an end to the dinosaurs.

The bible says we were "created" a few thousand years ago. That's what it says, and we know that's incorrect. If the bible uses such random things for metaphores, then it cannot be seen as accurate documentation of that era. Or god, for that matter. And you choose to believe "some" things in this hundred-times edited&translated book? If such random things are metaphores, then jesus could very well be a metaphor or an analogy.

The extinction WAS natural. Abrupt, but natural nonetheless. It wasn't by their own doing. Natural end to an era.

And that's the thing.. Christianity is faith... I'm sorry that you need concrete evidence to believe anything, but that is your own choice. I choose to believe in the Bible because I believe that it inspires hope for the salvation of humanity when it most decidedly is not deserving of it. And yes... being as the Bible has been translated over and over, and there is no one on this Earth that could possibly know for sure, tehn maybe, albeit not what I believe, then Jesus could himspef be a metaphor, but regardless, it is something you must put faith in. I mean, the Dead Sea Scrolls state that the chuch is in the heart and not a place you must go to... as long as you have that faith, then there is nothing you have to fear. Think of the Bible as purely a guide to a larger world.

The extinction WAS natural. Abrupt, but natural nonetheless. It wasn't by their own doing. Natural end to an era.

And that's the thing.. Christianity is faith... I'm sorry that you need concrete evidence to believe anything, but that is your own choice. I choose to believe in the Bible because I believe that it inspires hope for the salvation of humanity when it most decidedly is not deserving of it. And yes... being as the Bible has been translated over and over, and there is no one on this Earth that could possibly know for sure, tehn maybe, albeit not what I believe, then Jesus could himspef be a metaphor, but regardless, it is something you must put faith in. I mean, the Dead Sea Scrolls state that the chuch is in the heart and not a place you must go to... as long as you have that faith, then there is nothing you have to fear. Think of the Bible as purely a guide to a larger world.

In that case, being hit by a car is a natural way to go.

Yes, I agree it's about faith...Obviously. But faith isn't the topic. The topic is evidence, which we don't have. I don't need "concrete evidence to believe anything", why do you think that I do? I believe in many things, but god isn't one of them. I don't understand why people would choose such a life, things are so much easier without "god". I could never convince myself to believe in such an entity, that must be quite a feat. But each to his own, I guess.

Well...We don't have any dinosaurs, hence they failed.

Someone once said that if love was pointless because it didn't last forever, life would be pointless by the same reason.
I think that goes for dinosaurs, as well.

Genesis 0:0

On the evening before God beganth his creating, he decided to make a single entity. He made the entity out of his hair clippings and named him Jesus. The next day, God gave Jesus a stopwatch and said "Time me". And thus, Jesus timed the lord on how long it took him to create. And when all was done, the lord turned to Jesus and said "Done". Jesus looked down at the stopwatch and spoketh "7 days flat". God smiled and put Jesus in his hand. "I won't be needing you for a while, my son", he spoke to the hairy entity. God crushed the entity made of hair and fashioned for himself, a toupe."

Someone once said that if love was pointless because it didn't last forever, life would be pointless by the same reason.
I think that goes for dinosaurs, as well.

While I do not believe life is pointless, it certainly is terminal.I choose not to believe without proof and some choose to believe without proof.I do not consider either one of us wrong and do not care if others do not agree with me. :cool:

In that case, being hit by a car is a natural way to go.

Yes, I agree it's about faith...Obviously. But faith isn't the topic. The topic is evidence, which we don't have. I don't need "concrete evidence to believe anything", why do you think that I do? I believe in many things, but god isn't one of them. I don't understand why people would choose such a life, things are so much easier without "god". I could never convince myself to believe in such an entity, that must be quite a feat. But each to his own, I guess.

Getting hit by a car is an act committed by a man striking another being with a vehicle. Definitely not natural. The meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs was formed naturally... was naturally set on it's path with Earth, and naturally came down and demolished most life on the planet. A car was created by man, a fallible man got behind the wheel, wasn't paying attention and struck another human being who may or may not have been paying attention him/herself and killed them.That circumstance could have been avoided had either fallible man been doing one thing differently... that being thinking. It's a set of events that could have been changed by both parties involved.

Heh... I guess we've just proven that this thread is moot and asking proof of a faith is useless... but there will be another thread like it along shortly so all this can play itself out again... and well, I think that you just need the concrete evidence purly based on the notion I have of you not believing in God. That was an unjust rationalization, and I apologize, but that's the impression I got.

Originally posted by Hobbyair
While I do not believe life is pointless, it certainly is terminal.I choose not to believe without proof and some choose to believe without proof.I do not consider either one of us wrong and do not care if others do not agree with me.
Well, I agree.

Getting hit by a car is an act committed by a man striking another being with a vehicle. Definitely not natural. The meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs was formed naturally... was naturally set on it's path with Earth, and naturally came down and demolished most life on the planet. A car was created by man, a fallible man got behind the wheel, wasn't paying attention and struck another human being who may or may not have been paying attention him/herself and killed them.That circumstance could have been avoided had either fallible man been doing one thing differently... that being thinking. It's a set of events that could have been changed by both parties involved.
It depends on your definition of "natural".
If you mean natural as opposed to supernatural, a car is prefectly natural. But then, if wa had elves, dwarves and dragons walking the streets, they would be considered perfectly natural as well.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say with this.

Perhaps plentiful was a little optimistic. I wasn't aware of Josephus's writings being forged, however I will revise my previous understanding. Pliny the Younger made reference to Jesus in his description of the early Christians, and the Greek Lucian of Samosata also mentioned him briefly. Suetonious referred to him some years after the cruxifiction. There are a few wild theories that he spent part of his life in Britiain, and also travelled East, as some people speculate that he was heavily influenced by eastern religious thought. While these historical accounts may all be fabrications for the purpose of winning scalps for Jesus, I choose to believe that he did live and share his alternative approach to Judaism with his contemporaries. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not inclined to doggedly deny he existed out of disdain for Christianity. In a country occupied by foreign forces who denied the validity of the preexisting religious and political ideologies, I think it is immensley likely that you would find the odd political radical spreading dissent. While I don't believe that Jesus was the son of god, or that he rose from the dead, I also think it's likely that the Roman occupying forces would have used cruxificion as a deterrent for dissenters like Jesus, and I think the "Love Each Other" message is still a valuable one.

It's only the bit in Josephus referring to Jesus that is forged, it doesn't tally with the rest of the writing. Pliny was writing about christians, not christ, and Suetonius was also well after the alleged events. The point I was making was that we should treat the claims Jesus existed with scepticism, like we do those that Homer existed

The Romans strongly respected the Jewish faith and allowed the Jews to not worship the Roman gods - they were substantially more tolerant than early christian emperors.

As for political radicals, there were dozens, including several emperor Neros coming back from the dead. That doesn't mean by any stretch that they were demi-gods.

As for the influence of the east, some might say that Jesus is a mythical mystery god based on an amalgamated judaism and eastern religions.

Someone please define this word 'god' for me.

Someone please define this word 'god' for me.

Depends on which type of "God" your refering to.

Depends on which type of "God" your refering to.

the one the initiator of this thread wants evidence against

the one the initiator of this thread wants evidence against

You mean the Christian god then. All powerfull, perfectly good, perfectly loving, All knowing, eternal being. I may have left some stuff out so feel free to add anything i missed.

You mean the Christian god then. All powerfull, perfectly good, perfectly loving, All knowing, eternal being. I may have left some stuff out so feel free to add anything i missed.

does everyone go to heaven?

does everyone go to heaven?

According to the Christian belief system no. Then again that depends on what type of Christian sect one subscribes to. I know generally about catholic beliefs but when you go into protestant belief systems i cant help you there.

According to the Christian belief system no. Then again that depends on what type of Christian sect one subscribes to. I know generally about catholic beliefs but when you go into protestant belief systems i cant help you there.

so how is that all loving?

The Bible was actually a book written by an up and coming comedion of the time. The current version is a mistranslation.

The real titles are "Jesus goes to Hollywood" (old testament) and "Sex, drugs, violence and the Israelites, the Jesus years" (new testament)

so how is that all loving?

First let me state that I am an agnostic(former Catholic) so I am not defending these views merely stating them for you. The answer most frequently used to respond to your arguement is because people have free will they choose to reject God. God still loves them but its not him doing the sending off rather the fact that people have rejected God's love and there by rejecting his offer of salvation.

According to the Christian belief system no. Then again that depends on what type of Christian sect one subscribes to. I know generally about catholic beliefs but when you go into protestant belief systems i cant help you there. It's pretty much the same... Protestant and Baptist all stress the Acceptance of God and Jesus as savior in order to get into Heaven.

letting people who haven't heard of you (like Aboriginees until recent years) go to hell is hardly all loving

letting people who haven't heard of you (like Aboriginees until recent years) go to hell is hardly all loving

:headbang: Okay man I am just stating their beliefs. I do not necessarily agree with them.

Spoken like someone with no familiarity of scientific methodology. In order for science to disprove god, someone has to prepare a testable theory of god. I think that onus is on the believer, as they have so much to gain from it. Until a testable theory of god is developed, god is not a scientific subject, and no amount of religious text will demonstrate otherwise.
That said, I believe in god, and I find your christianocentric view rather arrogant and dismissive of other spiritual paths which can reconcile all the benefits of science, like medicine and computers. Maybe you should pray about that.
actually that isn't my opinion. the Scientific Process claim I made is in reference to an earlier thread there was an argument where people actually believed that the scientific process was only to Disprove things. :rolleyes: (looking for the Thread now, it was a while back, and they were serious about it.)

me, I believe the Scientific Process only proves the How... not the Who. For instance, Evolution is how God Created Life.

As for proof... that is a personal thing between the individual and God.

:headbang: Okay man I am just stating their beliefs. I do not necessarily agree with them.

no worries, just responding to the first post in this thread

Ok, how can someone put a stick in water and make a whole river turn red?

He puts the stick right in a whale's eye?

The Bible says pi = 3. It also says locusts have 4 legs, rabbits (or hyraxes, passage is unclear) chew cud, and bats are birds.

Also, by the OT, Jesus could not be the Messiah, because there are several prophecies that he does not fulfill.

Such as being descended from David, or giving the Hebrews a land of their own, or ending war, et cetera.

I beleive the purpose of this discussion was credible evidences against the bible. How can you believe what you said to be credible when you can't even give a location for all these things the bible says?

He puts the stick right in a whale's eye?

Hmmmmm... whales in the river?? I think the people of Egypt had bigger problems than they thought, then...

You mean God didn't create animals? And if God was omnipotent, couldn't he -create- stuff older than the age of the Earth? Hmm....

But why? I can never understand this argument. Why would your god bother testing us? Couldn't he just have made it a finite date and had us therefore believing in him? It seems so much easier than forging 4 billion years of history to me. And he'd get full worship from it.

I beleive the purpose of this discussion was credible evidences against the bible. How can you believe what you said to be credible when you can't even give a location for all these things the bible says?

pi = 3

1 Kings chapter 7 verse 23

pi = 3

1 Kings chapter 7 verse 23well... 3.125 (as it was calculated back then) and even the 3.1428571428571428571428571428571... as it would be calculated now... would round out to 3.

the fact that the verse referrs to Cubits... (which are mesured by the arm of the person... elbow to Tip of the Middle Finger.) and thus can be anywhere from 44 cm. to 64 cms that's still pretty close.

well... 3.125 (as it was calculated back then) and even the 3.1428571428571428571428571428571... as it would be calculated now... would round out to 3.

the fact that the verse referrs to Cubits... (which are mesured by the arm of the person... elbow to Tip of the Middle Finger.) and thus can be anywhere from 44 cm. to 64 cms that's still pretty close.

Oh man... mention not the cubits... I'm reading the Bible from cover to cover currently, and I had to chug through Leviticus because of teh insane detail that was put into the tabernacle. Hearing that word makes me tired.

Oh man... mention not the cubits... I'm reading the Bible from cover to cover currently, and I had to chug through Leviticus because of teh insane detail that was put into the tabernacle. Hearing that word makes me tired.sorry... but considering the Variable value given to the Cub... er... C-word, the value of three is pretty close... I mean it's only off by .1428571428571428571428571428571...

sorry... but considering the Variable value given to the Cub... er... C-word, the value of three is pretty close... I mean it's only off by .1428571428571428571428571428571...

:) Thanks...

AWRIGHT, KNOCK IT OFF!

Look, all you strangely self-righteous atheists need to leave the believers alone and get on with life.

Similarly, all of you holier-than-thou Christians need to understand your faith is YOURS alone and that it can't and shouldn't fit everyone. Stop telling the non-believers what to do and get on with life.

Sorry, but I am sick to the teeth of this whole argument because there's no point in arguing it! Nobody really cares what anyone else believes beyond the desire to tell the others that they're wrong and are either pious fools or BOUND for the lake of fire.

WHO CARES!










This plea for sanity brought to you by People Against Condescending Paternalism.
Well, one of the factors of life, apparently in this day and age, is seasoned debate, regardless of the forum. A prominent, inescapable, ubiquitous factor. To wit: if you think life is specifically external of this forum, why are you participating? Don't you have a life to get to?

Spoken like someone with no familiarity of scientific methodology. In order for science to disprove god, someone has to prepare a testable theory of god. I think that onus is on the believer, as they have so much to gain from it. Until a testable theory of god is developed, god is not a scientific subject, and no amount of religious text will demonstrate otherwise.
That said, I believe in god, and I find your christianocentric view rather arrogant and dismissive of other spiritual paths which can reconcile all the benefits of science, like medicine and computers. Maybe you should pray about that.
Good post! *bows*

Dude, life has to go on. Nothing is concrete. By your logic there are no successes, and how can you truly determine failure if there is no success. The only way something so huge as creation can fail is if it destroys itself... which hasn't happened since the beginning of existence.

And 65 million years is only a good arguement against a person who reads the Bible literally.. not one who would read it and make their own interpretations.
:confused:
Interesting ... so then what of species who have come to a halt, for which there is ample evidence, even the ones who disappeared during humankind recording age? That would be the end result of creation .... so because something comes to an end it failed? Or are you saying that creation itself isn't something that can ever be, in essence, a failure, since it's a binary situation of existence/nonexistence? Or are you insinuating the nature of creation should be left in a theatre of debate that renders it essentially parable in nature and nothing else ...? What other interpretations are you supposed to have - without a strong sense of reasonable discernment, logic ... than it's flexible and squishy and without any merit of seriousness.
Maybe to elucidate, there's an anthropic principle being implied by your first statement.
Furthermore, literally-speaking, the bible doesn't hold to scrutiny, and therefore, must be taken as parable or example, for which a person IS REQUIRED to use their own interpretations. And in the forum of interpretations, as i'd said, it's subjective argument.
Hope that makes sense. I've probably done better elsewhere (Heikoku's "come 'n get me, pseudo-christians" thread)

God is forgiving, to those who choose to believe in Him. Those who accept Jesus into their hearts and gain salvation, are forgiven of all their sins and will be caught up into the clouds prior to the damnation that occurs in Revelation. The children of God are those who believe in Him and have accepted His free gift of salvation not all the rest of humanity who will be destroyed in the end times.

God has given many second chances, to everyone in fact. But once the times spoke of in Revelation occur, then its too late. You missed your last chance and its all over. Similarly if you die without recieving salvation for your sins (and all it takes is one sin), then you're condemned to Hell. Your chance for a second chance is over. And quite realistically it makes sense that there be some finality at some point doesn't it?
Revelation paints out the true lack of mercy of both "god" AND Jesus of Nazareth. Read it carefully. It's the twisted and thorny fever-dream of a syphilitic outcast. Sure it makes sense if you realize that given enough time, the only comeuppance you really desire is vindication and summation of an infantile ego, suffering and torture for all except the enslaved and party-minded. F*ck that. That sick f*ck and the people who decided to include that book, as is painfully obvious and somewhat sorrowful, truly do not understand love.

Correct 1/3 of the world, you obviously missed the point that believers will already be taken out of the world thereby leaving the world left full of non-believers, and people who believe after the start of the Tribulation.

In other words, those who are saved are gone, and everyone else is left to get the judgement of God. If people alive at that time do actually get saved (few will), then those people may die in the mass deaths spoken of in the Revelation, but then they will go to Heaven. Those who die and are not believers will go to Hell.
I'm glad all the smart people that subscribe to their interpretation of that mistranslated text(s) decided that the millenium would fit their plans nicely for a "rapture" or some other fantasy-escapist equivalent had to just sit out and pout the FACT *note: FACT* that there wasn't any stupid evacuation of the devout and they'd just have to recalculate to make themselves feel better ... and adjust their newsletters! Like they have for ... well, centuries now. Ascribing trivial incidences to current events and then deciding it's the right time to forsake their responsibilities and say f*ck-all to actually living with the burden of just that - living. Consider the real understanding of living with the intent of reward coming to you on your death.

Getting hit by a car is an act committed by a man striking another being with a vehicle. Definitely not natural. The meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs was formed naturally... was naturally set on it's path with Earth, and naturally came down and demolished most life on the planet. A car was created by man, a fallible man got behind the wheel, wasn't paying attention and struck another human being who may or may not have been paying attention him/herself and killed them.That circumstance could have been avoided had either fallible man been doing one thing differently... that being thinking. It's a set of events that could have been changed by both parties involved.

Heh... I guess we've just proven that this thread is moot and asking proof of a faith is useless... but there will be another thread like it along shortly so all this can play itself out again... and well, I think that you just need the concrete evidence purly based on the notion I have of you not believing in God. That was an unjust rationalization, and I apologize, but that's the impression I got.

:) I enjoy debate...That's the whole, point, isn't it?
Man is a product of nature, therefore, anything man does is "natural", even dressing up in scuba-gear and giving an enema to a dead midget is perfectly natural :p .
But you're right, this thread will probably be repeated in a short while.

Genesis 0:0

On the evening before God beganth his creating, he decided to make a single entity. He made the entity out of his hair clippings and named him Jesus. The next day, God gave Jesus a stopwatch and said "Time me". And thus, Jesus timed the lord on how long it took him to create. And when all was done, the lord turned to Jesus and said "Done". Jesus looked down at the stopwatch and spoketh "7 days flat". God smiled and put Jesus in his hand. "I won't be needing you for a while, my son", he spoke to the hairy entity. God crushed the entity made of hair and fashioned for himself, a toupe."
Book of Enoch, right? ;)
LOL
If you follow the lineage .... at the end was ... Cousin It.

Good post! *bows*

It's easy to test for god. Walk into an empty church and yell "hello"

sorry... but considering the Variable value given to the Cub... er... C-word, the value of three is pretty close... I mean it's only off by .1428571428571428571428571428571...

er... pi isn't 3.1428571428571428571428571428571

it is 3.14159... and it never repeats a sequence (it is irrational)

Plus that verse doesn't say 30 cubits ish, it says 30 cubits encompasses the circle. It is clearly not the divinely inspired word of god, and is considerably less accurate that Babylonian or Egyptian estimates

To me, there is no credible argument FOR or AGAINST christianity. To those who don't believe, only the most persuasive believer can convert those who have it set in stone not to believe.

To those who do believe, it takes an equally persuasive non-believer to convince them that they're wrong.

It's a pointless debate in my opinion as it can never be prooven right or wrong. For every explanation or theory athiest and/or christians come up with, there's always a counter that can be argued.

The only thing that bothers me is the radical christians and radical athiest who can't put their differences aside to work together to help solve the current problems of the world. If that could happen, that alone would be a mild stone to the world.
Agreed, the true proving ground is in the living, and not the muttered ideologies that turn to daggers when the money is right *points fingers at current U.S. Administration/ideologues*
Faith is, in itself, by nature a self-delusion. As belief must follow - even if experience lends you to conclude many things reasonably, only some of the bible is anything anyone on this forum has actually experienced in a historical context (or by proxy, direct result of, depending on where you live).... with the exception of good advice, which there is in there.

It's easy to test for god. Walk into an empty church and yell "hello"
Hmmm ... interestingly enough, i hear myself do it, and then i realize i was listening for something. And i hear my own voice. And those things are enough to make me think i'd never be a good atheist.

It's only the bit in Josephus referring to Jesus that is forged, it doesn't tally with the rest of the writing. Pliny was writing about christians, not christ, and Suetonius was also well after the alleged events. The point I was making was that we should treat the claims Jesus existed with scepticism, like we do those that Homer existed

The Romans strongly respected the Jewish faith and allowed the Jews to not worship the Roman gods - they were substantially more tolerant than early christian emperors.

As for political radicals, there were dozens, including several emperor Neros coming back from the dead. That doesn't mean by any stretch that they were demi-gods.

As for the influence of the east, some might say that Jesus is a mythical mystery god based on an amalgamated judaism and eastern religions.
Bottle has an interesting bit of research on this subject, as does Grave_n_Idle ... Bottle posted a little blurb about Horus and it matches quite nicely what Jesus is supposed to be.

It's easy to test for god. Walk into an empty church and yell "hello"
If you start with the premise that the church is empty, then you are bound to fail in your test for the presence of anything.

Hmmm ... interestingly enough, i hear myself do it, and then i realize i was listening for something. And i hear my own voice. And those things are enough to make me think i'd never be a good atheist.

But there probably wouldn't be any answer which would indicate that nobody is there.

actually that isn't my opinion. the Scientific Process claim I made is in reference to an earlier thread there was an argument where people actually believed that the scientific process was only to Disprove things. The scientific process isn't solely about disproving things. One has to establish something to test first. After that point, the disproving bit is an enormous part of the process. Falsifiability is like a safety valve for science, so that scientific avenues based on faulty foundations don't continue to expand.

Hypothesis -> Test -> Conclude -> Disprove, Disprove, Disprove.
I believe the Scientific Process only proves the How... not the Who. Exactly. We are in complete agreement. There are some questions that science isn't designed to explain, and it's a poor scholar who attributes impossible tasks to science. Like two little boys god-moding each other about how strong their respective dads are.
As for proof... that is a personal thing between the individual and God Percieved proof can either enhance faith or weaken it. Sometimes faith has to relinquish dogma to be strengthened within the individual. People have to be comfortable in adjusting their construct of god with their perception of reality, even if that means abandoning dogmatic premises like virgin birth. It is a question of personal faith, I agree. Perhaps those who can reconcile reports of seemingly illogical phenomena with their perception of the world are just far more cognitively flexible than I.

There is no way anyone can prove or disprove the existence of a God.

For now.

As Lochiel said...

God and the Bible can neither be entirely proven or entirely disproven at this point in time, and possibly never.

That is all.

The Bible is pretty easily disproved.

1) It is well-documented that the OT did not exist in any written form until the end of the Babylonian Captivity. It strictly existed as an oral tradition for all the centuries preceeding. A careful study of the OT reveals that it actually contains influences from several different sources, but they were all incorporated. For instance, the OT opens with two very different and contradictory creation stories, both from alternate traditions.

While certain sites have been located, this does not corroborate the entire narrative. For comparison's sake, we have discovered Homer's city of Troy, but that doesn't prove the existence of Sirens.

2) It is proven by Clement of Alexandria's letter regarding the gospel of Mark and the Carpocratians that the NT has been edited for content, and is therefore not a historically reliable document. Furthermore, the lack of corroborating evidence from Roman sources is a compelling argument against their validity. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans were assiduous and copious documenters, which is why we know so much about them.

3) Though the four Gospels in the NT are contradictory at times, the general tale of the life of Jesus is fairly consistent. At the moment of Jesus' death, the stories diverge wildly, and no attempt at concordance is possible. Furthermore, when those portions of the story are read and compared in the order they were originally written (Mark, Matt, Luke, John), a clear pattern emerges. The story grows wilder with each telling. This evolution is characteristic of the mythologization process, where a story which may have had a simpler, true root becomes embellished into a full-blown myth. Again, see Homer for parallel.

The Bible is still an interesting historical document. It can point us in the right direction to uncovering some historical fact, but even more importantly, it provides a window into the minds of people during various historical periods, allowing us to understand the context under which actions were taken and decisions were based. On this score it does not deserve special treatment, but does belong in the pantheon of important mythological works which includes The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Book of Kells, The Illiad and The Odyssey, the norse sagas, etc.

Ok, how can someone put a stick in water and make a whole river turn red?


actually, he pointed his staff towards the rushes, not into the river :rolleyes:

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?


The Bible *is* credible evidence against Christianity.

Yeesh.

Well, a good arguement I've heard is that if God is so omnipotent, so omniscient, then why does He need US to worship Him? That need denotes an ego, which is a human flaw. And being that God is supposed to be perfect, this pretty well puts a good dent in the arguement forChristianity, or religion in general for that matter. I'm Christian and I wholeheartedly believe in the Truth of the Bible, but this had me scratching my head... what IF we all stopped believeing... just thought I'd share that little arguement with ya.
He does not need us to worship Him, but He is a relational being, and therefore desires relationships with us.

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!








good luck

Depends. Which version of Christianity are you referring to, and which version of the Bible?

There should be no need to provide evidence, you should need to provide evidence. There can be a theory of god, but no theory of not-god. With science, all things are assumed to be false, but given a chance to prove themselves. You could hypothosize that god exists, and then you would have to come up with evidence to support it. This evidence used to come in the form of natural phenomena (lightning! Aaaaah, it's god!). Now all sorts of things are proven to happen other ways, and the evidence is vanishing. God is going from law to theory back to hypothosis. However, just like you can't prove god, I can't disprove god. There may be other evidence for god, so no scientific person would ever have the rash to blatently say "there is no god, end of story".

You can't prove one way or the other, but with the current total of zero (0) pieces of evidence for, the idea of god is now in the "slim maybe" stage. I can't prove god isn't real, but without evidence he is assumed not to be.

A group of FUCKTARDS on a random internet message board settled the debate over the existence of god today! Who woulda thought?

Great, you can all go back to sleep now!

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!








good luck

The principle of atheism isn't to disprove christianity, but the fact that you can't prove that God exists. And it's true. Can YOU provide credible evidence FOR Christianity and the bible?

But there probably wouldn't be any answer which would indicate that nobody is there.
"It's a fairly simple case of non-presence." - Monty Python.
I'm guessing from your post i should add a smilie or something since i can't gesture or *wink* at you.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Ever heard/read that anywhere? What exactly do you think that means?






*sets his stopwatch and swigs back some root beer*
*sighs*

He does not need us to worship Him, but He is a relational being, and therefore desires relationships with us.

How is it Rational to desire a relationship with Hitler?

I agree with the idea that something must be proven rather than disproven, but here is my stance:


Hypothetical situation. I build a bomb. It is designed to go off in 5 minutes, and I turn it on and set it down inside a store. Five minutes later, the bomb goes off, killing several people.

Did I kill those people?

Obviously, the answer is yes. It is accepted by everyone that I did indeed kill those people. You cannot refute that with anything other than petty logic tricks.

So...

The Facts according to religion-
1) God is all-powerful and all knowing. Dispute this if you wish.
2) God created everything. Dispute that, too, if you want.

Now, using the above information, look at the scenario again.

God created everything, along with a fore-knowledge of everything (I repeat, EVERYTHING) that would happen along with that creation. This includes every single detail of every possible facet of life.

He created a person that created a bomb that killed several people. He KNEW that that person would kill other people. In fact, he designed that person for that exact purpose. It cannot be otherwise. Is God therefore guilty of killing those people?

Yes he is. Is there not also a commandment regarding killing? Or perhaps a basic law of life that killing is bad?

That is not evidence "against" God, but it is evidence against the current idea of Christianity and religion.

Okay. The bible is the word of G-d, and is therefore perfect and infallible, free of contradictions, correct? Well, let us read a little Genesis for inspiration:
We start with 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So, to recap, in 1:1, the Earth exists.

Now, let us look at 1:11
And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Recap of 1:11: G-d puts grass and plants on the earth

Now, important part, 1:27.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
So, 1:27...G-d created both Adam and Eve at the same time.

Chapter 2...Logically, chapter 2 happened after chapter 1...right? right.

2:5: No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground
ReCaP: Chapter 2 begins by saying Chapter 1 never happened. Could this be a (Bum Bum Bum :dramatic reverb: ) contradiction? No, never. Maybe I just interpreted this wrong. Let's read on and find some clarity.

2:7
Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place of flesh instead thereof. (2:22) And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So in 2:7, G-d created Adam, and then in 2:21/2:22, God created Eve


but wait...I thought Adam and Eve were created in 1:27...and at the same time. How could they have been created twice in two different ways? The bible is perfect and can never be wrong, yet it has Adam and Eve created TWICE? It seems to be a tad bit of contradiction. But if the Bible is perfect and the direct word of G-d, how can it contradict?

NOTE: I am not against the Bible or Christians. I think most Christians are wonderful good people, and the Bible teaches spectacular lessons. However, I am against people who accept the Bible as the "word of G-d" blindly without ever questioning it.

The Facts according to religion-
1) God is all-powerful and all knowing. Dispute this if you wish.
2) God created everything. Dispute that, too, if you want.

Now, using the above information, look at the scenario again.

God created everything, along with a fore-knowledge of everything (I repeat, EVERYTHING) that would happen along with that creation. This includes every single detail of every possible facet of life.

He created a person that created a bomb that killed several people. He KNEW that that person would kill other people. In fact, he designed that person for that exact purpose. It cannot be otherwise. Is God therefore guilty of killing those people?

Yes he is. Is there not also a commandment regarding killing? Or perhaps a basic law of life that killing is bad?


Ok, now lets re-work your example to actually make it right

Lets suppose you create a robot, and that robot is sentient. IE, it has the capacity to think for itself, is completely self reliant, can make moral and fair judgements etc. Then that robot decides to kill someone. Since that robot is sentient, it made the choice to kill someone itself. You had no influence. The same is true of God and humans. God created humans but humans made the choice to sin. God may know everything that will happen to the human race but that doesnt mean that he controls it or that he forces it all to happen. It is not God's responablity to make the world a wonderful happy place all the time. Despite what you might think.

For those of you who are saying that everyone's gonna burn in hell and be roasted on a spit for eternity, you are living in the Medieval ages. That description was used to scare people into believing. Try reading C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. He provides an EXCELLENT metaphor for heaven and hell.

It describes hell as a dull bland city full of people who are still attached to the worldly things of Earth that expands for hundreds of thousands of miles in every direction because the people there can't stand each other and keep moving outwards to get away from each other. In the exact middle of the city is a bus stop. From this bus stop, people can choose to travel up to heaven, and many do because they hear it's so much better than down in what Lewis calls "The Grey Town". So, up there the people of the grey town are like ghosts, not really ghosts, but the world around them is so much more REAL that they seem to be like ghosts. Things that would normally bend under their feet instead go through, such as the grass, and is very painful, but this represents that nothing that is good can be achieved without some amount of pain. Up there the people are seen as gigantic golden shining giants, some seem to be clothed others seem to be naked. Each ghost is assigned a giant with whom he/she had some contact with back on Earth to get them to let go of their earthly vices and join the giants in heaven. The fact is, in this story, some of the more successful tranfigurations are done with people who have commited heinous crimes or who originally refused to believe there was a God. For those who did believe in God, it was much harder to admit they were wrong in certain aspects of their life.

Ex. A ghost is met by a giant. This giant was a murderer on Earth who traveled to heaven from hell and managed to give up the things of Earth and believe in God. The ghost talks with the giant for a bit and says things to the sound of, "How can I believe in a God who lets murderers into heaven? I will not stay here, I will not stay in a place with a murderer." he chooses to leave and stay in "The Grey Town" instead of living in heaven all because of one man who truly begged forgiveness from God and got it.

C.S. Lewis is held in high regard by almost every division of the Christian Church, even Catholics who usually disregard anything written outside their faith. It is also good to note, that C.S. Lewis used to be an ardent Atheist who loved to prove priests wrong about God, and had never lost an argument of that nature, he would have made an excellent lawyer. The only reason he started to believe in a God, he became a theist at first, was because he found a flaw in his own argument.

Okay. The bible is the word of G-d, and is therefore perfect and infallible, free of contradictions, correct? Well, let us read a little Genesis for inspiration:
We start with 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So, to recap, in 1:1, the Earth exists.

Now, let us look at 1:11
And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Recap of 1:11: G-d puts grass and plants on the earth

Now, important part, 1:27.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
So, 1:27...G-d created both Adam and Eve at the same time.

Chapter 2...Logically, chapter 2 happened after chapter 1...right? right.

2:5: No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground
ReCaP: Chapter 2 begins by saying Chapter 1 never happened. Could this be a (Bum Bum Bum :dramatic reverb: ) contradiction? No, never. Maybe I just interpreted this wrong. Let's read on and find some clarity.

2:7
Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place of flesh instead thereof. (2:22) And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So in 2:7, G-d created Adam, and then in 2:21/2:22, God created Eve


but wait...I thought Adam and Eve were created in 1:27...and at the same time. How could they have been created twice in two different ways? The bible is perfect and can never be wrong, yet it has Adam and Eve created TWICE? It seems to be a tad bit of contradiction. But if the Bible is perfect and the direct word of G-d, how can it contradict?

NOTE: I am not against the Bible or Christians. I think most Christians are wonderful good people, and the Bible teaches spectacular lessons. However, I am against people who accept the Bible as the "word of G-d" blindly without ever questioning it.

The bible has two different creation stories, that's why the second one is titled "The Second Creation Story". Almost every christian knows that. Cya, come back with a better contradictory statement.

Ok, now lets re-work your example to actually make it right

Lets suppose you create a robot, and that robot is sentient. IE, it has the capacity to think for itself, is completely self reliant, can make moral and fair judgements etc. Then that robot decides to kill someone. Since that robot is sentient, it made the choice to kill someone itself. You had no influence.

"You had no influence" ONLY if you did not know that the robot WOULD kill somebody. If you were omniscient and KNEW that the robot, of its own free will, would kill someone - then yes, you would be responsible.

The same is true of God and humans. God created humans but humans made the choice to sin.

And God knew that they would make this choice, and still created them the same way they did. Even though, since he is omnipotent, it would be very easy for him to create being that, of their own free will, would make the choice to not sin.

can anyone here provide credible evidence against Christianity and the Bible?
i repeat, credible!

good luck

Why? Why post this when you know it will end up being completely redundant? No overall good from it will be produced... Only conflict? Are you posting as a Christian? Why produce conflict when you needn't otherwise?

Because you are an arrogant human, far from the perfection of God?

I pity you.