Johnny Skeptic

My arguments render historical evidence irrelevant. My current position, which is addressed towards Christians who believe that God will provide them with a comfortable eternal life, is that there are at least four possibilities, that 1) God will provide believers with a comfortable eternal life, 2) an evil God is masquerading as a good God and will send everyone to hell, 3) God is amoral and it is unknown what he will do to believers and everyone else after they die, and 4) there are no credible means by which we can choose which possibility is most likely. Regarding possibility 2, if God is evil, he could easily masquerade as a good God, partly by raising people from the dead, healing people, and accurately predicting the future. Regarding possibility 3, an amoral God might easily act similar to the God of the Bible. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Matthew 14:14 says "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick." The references depict a God who by human standards is amoral or bi-polar. If a man made a person blind or deaf, he would still go to prision even if he had discovered a cure for cancer, and with the approval of Christians I might add.

Evoken

And your whole argument is rendered irrelevant by faith. Christians believe God is good and they trust his revelation on that. They can't prove to you that God is not tricking them? So what? You can't prove God is evil and is tricking them either.

I don't think you are making any argument really.


Valz

Johnny Skeptic

What you don't seem to understand is that I am quite content with a Mexican standoff, but Christians aren't. A faith only argument is exactly what I wish that every Christian would use because if my argument is rendered irrelevant solely by Christians' faith, then it is also rendered irrelevant by the faith of the followers of all other religions as well, in which case would put Christianity in exactly the same boat as all other religions.

Regarding "I don't think you are making any argument really," it depends upon which Christians my arguments are addressed to. If my arguments were specifically addressed to the "faith only" crowd, then your comment would have some merit. However, although I did not state it previously, my arguments are addressed specifically to the "faith plus evidence" crowd. That includes a good percentage of Christians in the U.S. and at this forum. It is to that crowd that I say that even if God can raise people from the dead, heal people, and accurately predict the future, if an evil God exists who is masquerading as a good God, he would easily be able to duplicate the actions that are attributed to the God of the Bible, making distinguishing the true nature of God impossible for the faith plus evidence crowd.

In your opinion, what are your best arguments against Christianity? What do you hope to achieve at this forum?

Evoken

The vacuity and irrelevance of religious expression

Individual arguments about this or that aspect of any religion are pointless until you stablish that any religious claim is relevant.

I have no goal, I just enjoy posting here and debating. What about you?


Valz

Johnny Skeptic

I read some of the link that you mentioned. I agree with it.

As an agnostic, I don't have to establish anything. All that I need to do is to ask the "faith plus evidence" crowd what evidence they have that God is good, is not an imposter, and will provide them with a comfortable eternal life? Regarding the "faith only" crowd, I do not have any idea whatsoever what they hope to gain by visit the IIDF. Every skeptic has his own favorite arguments. There is no way that all skeptics are ever going to favor the same arguments. Over the past few years, I have gotten a lot of public and private compliments on my writings and debates, including some from noted skeptic Bible scholar Dr. Robert Price, and even including some from Christians. I am not bragging. I just want you to know that I am not in the least bit concerned if you do not approve of my debating style.

My only real interest is social issues, most importantly physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marraiage. I oppose anyone who opposes those practices. It just so happens that in the U.S., fundamentalist Christians are the chief opponents of physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage, and since the Bible is the main basis for their objections, I frequently attack the Bible. If I lived in a democratic Muslim country, I would attack the Koran.

Evoken

I didn't say that I don't aprove of it. You asked me for an argument and I told you about it. Individual arguments against religion do have their utility as well.

For example, would a benevolent, all knowing and powerful God use Evolution to create? Would he wait over 14 billion years to create humans and share his divine plan with a single species out of thoudsands of species? And more to that would he set up his divine plan so that only a small fraction of this single species end up in Heaven while the majority goes to Hell?

If that is not wasteful, dumb and cruel I don't know what it is. It is more likely than not, that such a God does not exists.


Valz