NationStates Jolt Archive

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.

http://www.christianfaq.com/

It answers questions on common questions posed against religions.

I've never really read these kinds of arguments before that prove religion isn't just some game of follow-the-leader, but being anti-non-religous, my opinion may not matter :p.

Well anyway, enjoy -- just thought I'd share something with the people here.

No..it poses very one sided (obviously) answers, given with Knee-jerk tired explanations often used by Christians when they dont have any real answers to offer.

That's a lot of text... looks interesting though. Judging by the first two entries, I think I'll bookmark it, thanks. :)

BackwoodsSquatches -- hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just find that site very useful.

Pepe Dominguez - No problem, anytime :).

BackwoodsSquatches -- hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just find that site very useful.

Pepe Dominguez - No problem, anytime :).


Agreed.

But in fairness, Im presenting an athiests view on the answers it provides, in case anyone is wondering how they seem to someone like minded.

These arent new, or different answers...same old questions, with weak answers.

I'm sorry, this isn't the be-all-and-end-all to the Christian debate. It is merely one medicore site that does a little of what is expected to level the discourse of this debate

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.

http://www.christianfaq.com/

It answers questions on common questions posed against religions.

I've never really read these kinds of arguments before that prove religion isn't just some game of follow-the-leader, but being anti-non-religous, my opinion may not matter :p.

Well anyway, enjoy -- just thought I'd share something with the people here.

That's too much text!

This one (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/) is better. :)

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.
Arr! Good site, thanks. It supports the concept of the Image of God. Me likes.

Edit: har! good quote (in a pirate mood today):

Where Atheists and other non-believers go wrong is when they attack the religious symbols, rather than the thing they represent to a trained and thinking member of the religion. In the debate world they call this a "straw man," meaning they set up a caricature of what the other side thinks and attack that rather than the real thing. They'll laugh at the thought of a world doomed over a forbidden piece of fruit or of a beast with ten heads taking over the world, rather than try to understand the meaning that's being conveyed, to find out what it is Christianity believes.

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.

http://www.christianfaq.com/

It answers questions on common questions posed against religions.

I've never really read these kinds of arguments before that prove religion isn't just some game of follow-the-leader, but being anti-non-religous, my opinion may not matter :p.

Well anyway, enjoy -- just thought I'd share something with the people here.

I'm sure it's interesting. Of course, there are some inaccuracies. For instance, in the section on slavery in the Bible, the author claims that the Bible required that all slaves be given a chance to go free in the 7th year of their slavery. This is patently incorrect. Only male Hebrew slaves were to be given this opportunity. All female slaves were slaves for life unless the owner chose to marry them. All non-Hebrew slaves were slaves for life.

Not that Christians should own slaves - Hebrew or non-Hebrew. We simply need to realize that everything that the ancient Hebrews thought was right and proper - coming directly from God - was not necessarily from God.

http://www.christianfaq.com/
y'know. I thought that link said christianfag, which interested me no end, the idea a devout RC would promote it.
Shame really.

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.

http://www.christianfaq.com/

It answers questions on common questions posed against religions.

I've never really read these kinds of arguments before that prove religion isn't just some game of follow-the-leader, but being anti-non-religous, my opinion may not matter :p.

Well anyway, enjoy -- just thought I'd share something with the people here.

This one is better:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

edit: Damn. I see Lazy Otakus beat me to it.

Meh, people who have had NDEs report that their version of the afterlife corresponds to their beliefs in life...that leads me to believe that we're either all delusional or all gods are valid.

Personally, I think all of the gods ever concieved exist, but their ability to influence the world depends entirely on the number of people who believe in them. Few people believe in Zeus or Ra anymore, so their power is limited while the power of Yahweh or Jesus is increased.

Meh, people who have had NDEs report that their version of the afterlife corresponds to their beliefs in life...that leads me to believe that we're either all delusional or all gods are valid.

Personally, I think all of the gods ever concieved exist, but their ability to influence the world depends entirely on the number of people who believe in them. Few people believe in Zeus or Ra anymore, so their power is limited while the power of Yahweh or Jesus is increased.

Terry Pratchett fan, are you?

http://www.christianfaq.com/
It still has trouble with the problem of evil. By ignoring God's omnipotence and responsibility for the nature of the universe, it completely glosses over the real problem. By pointing to aspects of the universe that make the existence of evil necessary, it ignores that the universe need not be like that.

I also didn't like his response to the question of different religions. He made one statistical error, but also made claims about God that I don't think mainstream Christianity would accept.

I thought that said christianfag at first.

EDIT: after reading it, these are all one-sided questions. There are alot more questions that he fails to address, probably because he doesnt have an answer.

*cough*STRAWMANFALLACY*cough*

And even the answers to the straw men are the same tired, repetitive bs always spouted.

And so, we see the origin of the phrase, "Preaching to the choir."

No..it poses very one sided (obviously) answers, given with Knee-jerk tired explanations often used by Christians when they dont have any real answers to offer.



I guess it's hard to give good answers to the knee-jerk tired questions often used by Atheists.

Mind you: I did see a few atheists in our regional homeless shelters.
As takers, not givers.

If you are going to forcefully criticize it, at least read the article and point out contradictions before you pass judgement. Instead of leading people to believe the article isn't worth their time.

If you are going to forcefully criticize it, at least read the article and point out contradictions before you pass judgement. Instead of leading people to believe the article isn't worth their time.
By "preaching to the choir," I mean there is nothing in the linked FAQ that will change anyone's mind. It may strengthen you faith, but it won't change your mind.

who seeks out these sites?

So FINALLY we have answers to common questions posed against religions
Well, no, there's no 'finally' about it. These are fairly common answers to the common questions.

Am I the only one who thought the site was christianfag.com?

By "preaching to the choir," I mean there is nothing in the linked FAQ that will change anyone's mind. It may strengthen you faith, but it won't change your mind.

I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone individaully.

It could offer answers, I mean, what else is the author trying to do besides answer the questions?

I don't think any of the "answers" provided on that site will be helpful to anybody who was sincerely asking the questions to begin with. It might be helpful for some Christians to see their own beliefs written out that way, maybe to get some things straight in their own heads, but I don't think many non-Christians will find the answers useful or satisfying.

I'm sure it's interesting. Of course, there are some inaccuracies. For instance, in the section on slavery in the Bible, the author claims that the Bible required that all slaves be given a chance to go free in the 7th year of their slavery. This is patently incorrect. Only male Hebrew slaves were to be given this opportunity. All female slaves were slaves for life unless the owner chose to marry them. All non-Hebrew slaves were slaves for life.

Not that Christians should own slaves - Hebrew or non-Hebrew. We simply need to realize that everything that the ancient Hebrews thought was right and proper - coming directly from God - was not necessarily from God.

Being someone's wife in that time period was the equivalent of slavery. Just because a female slave is married to her master doesn't mean she was out of the wood's yet. Hebrew men literaly owned their wives. It was not a glorious world in Biblical times.

Some rebuttals:

To the first question:

In this one, the writer defends the symbols of Christianity. That is all well and good, as it is a little ridiculous to take the bible as literally as they will explain it in Sunday School.

However, a great majority of Christians do understand the bible literally. Man was created in God's image, meaning God is similar to a man even in appearance to many people. People do believe in a spacial manifestation of hell and heaven.

He does display the strawman very well. An attack on religious symbolism is not an attack on religion. But then he commences to counter the strawman. He states that the strawman is a weak argument (even an invalid argument) yet then he targets it, largely because it is a weak argument. Nothing like two invalid arguments to answer one stupid question.

At one point I thought he was going to take a detour into relevancy, saying:

At the simplest level, what Christians believe is that the universe was an intentional act of design and creation. To pull off such an act, they believe, the being or energy (or whatever you're comfortable calling the creator of this project) had a mind and the ability to think and imagine. It had intentions.

I thought that he would actually counter the true knock on Christianity, that it is not necessary, that the universe, humanity, and morality are all the same whether God exists or not.

Alas, he only used this brief glimmer of hope to segue into an explanation of how we misunderstand how God communicates.

As he gets into how Christianity can be dismissed, he states that many atheists will say "I don't believe it if I can't see it and touch it." And with that he lost all grounds to complain about strawman arguments.

From there he proceeds to provide ample reason why you shouldn't believe in God, but since he assumes God exists and directs this to people who also assume this, this truth is largely lost.

He states, "A man is never more superstitious, in fact, than when he stands on solid earth and says he believes in nothing beyond the grass between his toes and the wind on his cheeks."

He is wrong, if he changes the word "nothing" to "something," then he is correct.

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.

http://www.christianfaq.com/

It answers questions on common questions posed against religions.

I've never really read these kinds of arguments before that prove religion isn't just some game of follow-the-leader, but being anti-non-religous, my opinion may not matter :p.

Well anyway, enjoy -- just thought I'd share something with the people here.


lol - I just want to know why you mentioned that your friend was Filipino :D

Meh, no matter how much I'd LIKE to believe in some religions, and how many other people do, I can't shake the feeling that in a thousand or so years, if Humans haven't already killed the entire race off, they'll look at our religions the same way we look at Greek and Roman Mythology.

It is times like these that we must ask ourselves, what would Ignatius Reilly do?

No..it poses very one sided (obviously) answers, given with Knee-jerk tired explanations often used by Christians when they dont have any real answers to offer.
I disagree. It was rather less arrogant, and rather more patient and explanatory than most other sch websites I've seen.

I'm sure it's interesting. Of course, there are some inaccuracies. For instance, in the section on slavery in the Bible, the author claims that the Bible required that all slaves be given a chance to go free in the 7th year of their slavery. This is patently incorrect. Only male Hebrew slaves were to be given this opportunity. All female slaves were slaves for life unless the owner chose to marry them. All non-Hebrew slaves were slaves for life.
No, the author mentions this.

Mind you: I did see a few atheists in our regional homeless shelters.
As takers, not givers.
Were they wearing their "I am an atheist" t-shirts?

By "preaching to the choir," I mean there is nothing in the linked FAQ that will change anyone's mind. It may strengthen you faith, but it won't change your mind.
It's not intended to convert anyone. It's intended to educate hecklers.

My friend, being a Filipino and devout to the Roman Catholic Church showed me this yesterday.

http://www.christianfaq.com/

It answers questions on common questions posed against religions.

I've never really read these kinds of arguments before that prove religion isn't just some game of follow-the-leader, but being anti-non-religous, my opinion may not matter :p.

Well anyway, enjoy -- just thought I'd share something with the people here.
Nice site.