"Christianity debunked"

  • Thread starter Thread starter WJL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a long article, so it’s kind of lazy to hand it to the forum and simply say refute it.

Pick one specific point from the article you wish to refute and let people reply. Then go onto the next item you wish to debate and so on.
 
It’s a long article, so it’s kind of lazy to hand it to the forum and simply say refute it.

Pick one specific point from the article you wish to refute and let people reply. Then go onto the next item you wish to debate and so on.
I’ve seen people here refute an article point by point before so, that’s why I asked.
 
Another thing I’d like to mention, I am a Catholic do not agree with the premise of the cited article above. I’m still learning about Apologetics and I was hoping that some of the more knowledgeable posters could help me out with refuting the arguments made in this article.
 
I found this article on another forum I was browsing, which purports to “debunk” Christianity:

unintimidatedpress.com/christianity.htm

Could any other Catholics refute the arguments made in this article?

Thanks.
The article is trash, don’t waste your time throwing pearl to swine. This person has apparently got everything figured out for herself, so she will only rubbish all that you say. She has no real argument, she only assumes people in the ancient world were stupid.
 
Awe, I am going to have some fun with this person. His/her level of knowledge and research gives the “Obama’s the Antichrist” guy a bad name.

I have to divide this in to two posts.
Everything that we know about Jesus Christ is based strictly and entirely on hearsay.
So is the identity of your great, great grandmother. Every part of historic record is hearsay with relatively limited archeological exceptions, which support Jesus as having walked the earth.

The Battleship: USS New Germany, I mean, New Jersey is on public display. Prove on scientific grounds that it actually fought in WW II and wasn’t just a stage for a bunch of action films that got mistaken for war footage.
The first issue that I have with Christianity is if Jesus Christ was the son of God then why didn’t he tell the people during his time that the Earth was round and that it orbited the sun?
Because it was commonly excepted knowledge in those days that the world was round. And for the world revolving around the sun, in the words of Sherlock Holmes: “It is a completely useless piece of knowledge and I will do my best to forget it.”
Why didn’t Jesus tell people that there were huge continents on the other side of the planet that were inhabited by tens of thousands of people?
Who is to say he didn’t. The apostles made it absolutely clear that their records only tell a very tiny amount of what Jesus said and did.
This might be open to debate, but I don’t believe that it’s possible for anyone to be the son of a being who supposedly had the capabilities that the Christians claim their god had without every mortal human being who comes in contact with him not instantly being overwhelmed by awe
And why not?
Irrespective of the Bible, those people would’ve wrote something like: “OK, we don’t believe he’s the son of God, but boy will he knock your socks off other ways.” But we know that that just simply was not the case.
We don’t know which, if any of them are valid, but we have letters from Roman officials similarly describing Jesus.
And apparently the Romans who came in contact with Jesus didn’t believe he was the son of God, either. In fact, to them he was just some sort of rebel who had become such a nuisance that they had him crucified.
The author can’t possibly be dumb enough to buy that. Can he?
If there was a god who created the universe and all life and that god wanted to send a message to the human race why choose a time when people still believed that the Earth was flat,
THEY DIDN’T
That would explain why to this day some 2000 years after the fact there’s billions upon billions of people on this planet who still haven’t gotten the message - in particular, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists.
Which is consistent with prophecy, a core part of the evidence that supports the validity of Christianity.
On the one hand he was supposed to have created the universe and all life, but on the other, when it came to being able to get a message across to the humans he was supposed to have created, the best he could do was to resort to a method that had zero chance of reaching everyone on the planet at that time, and even to this day.
Even Atheists know that that’s nonsense. What is the largest faith in the world?
That point in and of itself shoots down the credibility of the Christian god. I don’t subscribe to the notion that a being could create the universe, create life, know everything there is to know about every human being, heal all the people he’s attributed to healing, cast judgment on everyone when they die, do all that but only have relatively feeble capabilities when it comes to getting his message across to everyone on the planet at the same time. It just simply flies in the face of the capabilities that the Christians claim their god had.
We’re getting capability and will mixed up here.
If there is a god that has the capabilities that the Christians claim their god has and is as concerned about people as the Christians claim theirs is, we wouldn’t have to rely on hearsay accounts of that god’s existence that are thousands of years old. That god would, and could, make himself known in the here and now, in realtime, for everyone on the planet to see with their own eyes. Any god that can’t do that will never have any credibility with me, nor will any religion that happens to be based on that god. The only evidence for the Christian god is supposedly people who thousands of years ago supposedly heard a voice.
The Christian version of God is the foundation of the universe as a life form it’s self. With even intermediate understanding of God this way, seeing the creator of the universe show up on your doorstep as a man doesn’t sound very practical as he would have to tamper with the universe he created to do it, when merely using the elements as a transmitter works just fine.
 
Another issue regarding Christianity concerns what the Christians say happens after a person dies. According to them, after a person dies he or she is then judged by the Christian god to determine what their fate will be. Oh? I hope the Christian god has a lot of free time… he’s going to need it.
There are far more planets in the universe then people who ever lived. Whatever conscience created the universe is going to have no problem at all processing that many people.
And then there’s the “hocus-pocus” syndrome. Despite the fact that you can point a telescope at the sky on any given night and see how stars and planets are born over time, the Christians prefer to believe that God waved his magic wand and went “hocus-pocus” and puff an Earth appeared.
I’d LOVE to hear this guys version of how the universe was born.
And then there’s the matter of the dinosaurs. According to the biblical account of creation, humans and dinosaurs would’ve been created on the same day. What that would mean would be that at some point in time throughout human history, human beings and dinosaurs would have had to have coexisted with each other. Some Christians grasp at straws by pointing to disputed fossils in Texas that appear to show what look like human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks. But if dinosaurs and humans had ever coexisted no one would have to grasp at straws to prove it. Humans are meticulous record keepers. Even before there was written text people drew pictures to convey messages. In particular, prehistoric humans drew pictures on the walls of caves of the animals that they coexisted with. You won’t find any pictures of dinosaurs.
A highly disputed biblical record dating back to Samaria. Not everyone among the Christian community accepts that version as true, and those who do, whether or not they know it, have evidence behind them that suggests the possibility that the creation scenario could have happened AFTER the dinosaurs were already extinct. The key factors here are that the creation story does not necessarily include the universe nor does it necessarily mean that the earth wasn’t created out of an already existing but decimated planet.
Scientists have already determined that based on what we know about the solar system and life, events as depicted in the 7 days of creation in the book of Genesis were a complete and total impossibility.
Almost the opposite is true. They are just finding evidence of it happening in a more practical way then most people envision.

Overall, that’s a very hot headed article with a very shallow outlook on these matters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that his impression of Christianity IS a fairytale. I mean, come on. When was the last time you met a Christian, even one who’s completely off their rocker, who thinks the devil is some red guy with bull horns and a pitch fork?

That article is a collection of the poorest Atheist arguments I have heard in many years.
 
I found this article on another forum I was browsing, which purports to “debunk” Christianity:

unintimidatedpress.com/christianity.htm

Could any other Catholics refute the arguments made in this article?

Thanks.
I’m still trying to figure out how someone could be “worshipping Christianity”. Um, Christians worship Christ, not Christianity.

In any case, one of the primary flaws of this article is the complete lack of any sources to back up anything the author says. There are no footnotes. No sources cited. There is a persistent appeal to “Christians/Ancients believe this” or “Christians/Ancients do that” with nothing put forward to justify why the author’s statements are true. They are simply presented as fact. For an article with so ambitious a title (“The Final Debunking of Christianity”), one would expect some references to primary sources, perhaps some statistics thrown in, and perhaps even some references to scholarly scientific studies. None of these are present. The author provides nothing but their own opinion based on hearsay of their own. It’s hard to take it seriously as a debunking of any kind.
 
For an article with so ambitious a title (“The Final Debunking of Christianity”), one would expect some references to primary sources, perhaps some statistics thrown in, and perhaps even some references to scholarly scientific studies. None of these are present The author provides nothing but their own opinion based on hearsay of their own. It’s hard to take it seriously as a debunking of any kind.
Yeah, really. That article was a big let down. I was expecting an actual scientific challenge of some sort or at least something new. The author didn’t even bring science to the table. I guess I should have expected it. Only someone who isn’t all there is going to make such a bold statement without proof to back it up.
 
Code:
Quote:
 	 		 The first issue that I have with Christianity is if Jesus Christ was the son of God then why didn't he tell the people during his time that the Earth was round and that it orbited the sun?
Because it was commonly excepted knowledge in those days that the world was round. And for the world revolving around the sun, in the words of Sherlock Holmes: “It is a completely useless piece of knowledge and I will do my best to forget it.”
As if Jesus had no more important reason to come to earth than to give science lessons. :rolleyes:
 
As if Jesus had no more important reason to come to earth than to give science lessons. :rolleyes:
I thought he gave a pretty good science lesson on the mound. Science of the human mind anyway. “Treat others as yourself” “Those who live by the sword shal die by the sword” “You will only be forgiven that which you forgive others”, “Judge and you will be judged.” God or no God, that all works and works like a charm in human association alone, spirituality aside.
 
I tried to get through the first two parapgraphs, and right off the bat I noticed the assertions that Christians were “waging war” against _________. Well, hyperbole aside, that’s as patently ridiculous as it is inverted.

The entire thing reads like " A Final Disliking of My Caricatured Misunderstanding of Pseudo-Christianity." There is not much to refute, because there are no real arguments put forth. I suppose the best way to refute condescension and hyperbole is with better condescension and hyperbole. And maybe a few facts . . .

All my best . . .:cool:
 
I thought he gave a pretty good science lesson on the mound. Science of the human mind anyway. “Treat others as yourself” “Those who live by the sword shal die by the sword” “You will only be forgiven that which you forgive others”, “Judge and you will be judged.” God or no God, that all works and works like a charm in human association alone, spirituality aside.
This is true, but you know what I mean. I believe it was St Augustine who said something to the effect that the Scriptures “were to teach us how to get to heaven, not teach us about the heavens.”
 
This is true, but you know what I mean. I believe it was St Augustine who said something to the effect that the Scriptures “were to teach us how to get to heaven, not teach us about the heavens.”
Yeah, I know.

BTW. I use to live in your neighborhood. We might know each other. I was an active Catholic at the time and we’re probably in the same age group.
 
Wow! That article was almost like someone caricaturing atheists. I thought his argument about God not having enough time to judge everyone when they die and still run the world was quite bizarre. I guess he never stopped to think that God might be operating outside of time. I was hoping he had a comment section; I was going to tell him to pick up mere Christianity by CS Lewis. If the original poster is still reading, that book demolishes almost every misconception this guy has about Christianity. If you’ve never read it, it’s essential reading for combating this kind of silliness. Beg borrow or steal a copy if you have to. (Well actually, don’t steal one).

amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c
 
Wow, where to start? I’ll take a shot at a few.
If you listen to Christians in the United States you might come away with the impression that they’re a persecuted lot. They’ll point to things like the opposition to the displaying of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, the opposition to prayer in public schools, and attempts by others to remove references to God from our currency, etc…
It’s not so much a cry of persecution as it is an effort to correct lies. The men who founded our country left massive amounts of written documents that clearly spell out who they were and what they believed. They believed that the principles of the Christian religions (and only the Christian religions) formed a solid enough moral base upon which to build a nation and a set of laws. Today we are lied to; told these men were NOT that, often some trash about Thomas Jefferson being a deist (a deist believes in God btw).

But the man who’s pen wrote the Constitution, Gouvenor Morris, wrote two books about his experiences writing the document and seeing it through to ratification 2 years later in 1789. In BOTH of his books he said this:

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals. Therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God.”

Perhaps the writer of the article would care to explain to the man who wrote the actual document why God’s mention has no place in the public arena, or how Morris’ goal could be accomplished if you can’t mention God in a classroom?

Another of the signers of the Constitution, William S. Johnson, spoke at the commencement exercises of a PUBLIC school not long after signing his name to the Constitution. This is what he told a PUBLIC school class:

“You this day, gentlemen, have received a public education, the purpose whereof has been to qualify you better to serve your Creator and your country.”

Later in the same speech he said:

“Your first great duties, if you are sensible, are those you owe to heaven, to your Creator, and to your Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your mind, and be exemplified in your life and your conduct.”

Perhaps the author would care to debate why Mr. Johnson would say something like that after just signing his name to a document if the purpose of that document was to assure a completly secular society? The real answer - they had no such intention. They fully intended for the principles of Christianity to form the base of the principles by which society should operate.
It is they who are always waging a war against gay marriage.
You say this like it’s a bad thing for someone to engage in the struggles of their culture. Did you not observe the huge unrest when Prop 8 failed in California this past year? Who was doing all the demonstrating? Who was threatening to defy the law? Wasn’t the Christians doing that.
I don’t have anything against people worshiping Christianity. If the Christians would just go off amongst themselves and worship amongst themselves and mind their own business there would be no problem. But, unfortunately, that just simply is not the reality.
I’m curious just how comfortable this shoe would be if worn on the other foot. What would the author think if this sentence was proposed, only substituting the word “gays” for “Christians.” I would wager there would be a howl of protest. Not that I think any true Christian would ever propose such a thing, just saying.
In recent years the Christians have taken to reminding us that the United States was founded by Christians.
Someone has to, otherwise your remain ignorant. See above examples re: Morris & Johnson
I interpret that to mean that they think that that gives them the right to force their ways down everyone else’s throat.
You are responsible for your own bad interpretations. You don’t want Christians telling you how to live, and to prevent that, you’ll tell all Christians how they should live. Wonderful!
…it’s only fair that we take a close look at just exactly what the foundations are that their beliefs are based on.
I live in the South. We have a phrase that is a precursor to something very bad about to happen - “Y’all watch THIS!” I can’t help feeling the author’s statement is another that could fit in this same category. I’m sure (rolling eyes) we’re going to get a fair examination.
people weren’t as enlightened as we are today. They go back to a time when people didn’t understand things like why it rained, why the wind blew, why the sun came up, and even why people got sick, etc… The only explanation that those people could come up with was that there must’ve been some supreme being who was responsible for all of the things that they witnessed in the natural world, including life itself. It was that mentality that spawned the god that the Christians worship.
AHA! So God exists because everyone was too stupid to come up with a better set of answers. Well, what can we say about the main page of your site, is it not doing the same thing you accuse early civilizations of?

Quoted from the author’s main page of his site:
The Energy-Control Meditation Technique invented by Jesse Attreau is the purest form of meditation that there is and the only form of meditation that’s based on the way that your mind actually works
The Energy Factor, the phenomenon discovered by Mr. Attreau, explains, in whole or in part, everything:
* Personality
* Aging
* Good health
* Depression
* Fatigue
* Grief
* Emotions
Everything that we know about Jesus Christ is based strictly and entirely on hearsay.
Not true. Heresay is when person C testifies that person A told person B a set of information. When person B testifies person A told it directly to them, that’s called first-person or eyewitness testimony. Big difference.
So right off the bat there’s a credibility problem there - see how far hearsay evidence would get you in a court of law.
It might interest you to know that Socrates also did not write anything down, and we have no record of his existence except for the writings of three people who lived contemporaneously with him, two of them were his students and friends, not exactly the most objective witnesses. Their writings in total are a mere fraction of what is recorded about Jesus - yet we have no problem believing Socrates was a real, living person. Further, the writings about Jesus have been subjected to centuries of extremely close scrutiny from any number of experts in various fields (history, language, literature, theology just to name a few), and some of them worked specifically to DISprove anything we know about him. Didn’t work out. Evidence is what it is and says what it says independent of someone’s belief set.
 
I can’t believe someone spent the time to write that article. I stared in disbelief for a second or two at the statement that we are “waging war against gay marriage.”:rotfl:That’s like saying the neighborhood print shop is constantly waging war against yellow purples, by saying there is no such thing, after being open for generations before someone came in and angrily demanded five reams of yellow purple paper.
Why didn’t Jesus tell His followers about every scientific fact in the cosmos? Well, he had other things to do, like heal, raise the dead, console, challenge, and save humanity, as well as all the moral teaching. But then again, maybe He did find time for some science education. The Gospel of John says that if everything He did were written down, there would not be room for all the books. In other words, it isn’t all written down. As for feeling it’s OK for us to exist in secret, yeah, actually a majority of us in the world do live in secret, but since we’re called to share, it’s sad that we would ever have to do so, especially since it’s only kept in the dark where the powerful are hiding from the truth – and forcing those with the truth to hide from the police. But this is America, where we are a large majority yet have trouble getting airtime for our majority views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top