We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
|Goal: $5000||Donations so far: $3075|
Help and donate today!
Essay talk:Is there no God?
I usually deal with the type of argument in the link, by going straight to, "There's no more reason to believe the bible than to believe the Greek myths, the Egyptian myths or other mythology of that time.”
The arguments in the link aren’t rational but demonstrating al that is complicated and you can’t easily get through to people who want to believe. By contrast pointing out that other theories about god/gods are also possible is easy to understand and causes serious doubt. I believe many street preachers in the town where I live shut up shop when they see me rather than have their faith challenged. Proxima Centauri (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The only arguments that stand a chance against the above are historical arguments, I rarely get them. Historical arguments easily degenerate into claims and counter claims. Then only scholars who have studied the history of first century Judea at degree level or equivalent stand a chance of deciding what’s valid. Despite this there is one strong refutation of all historical arguments for Christianity.
If the evidence for Jesus were as strong as some Christians claim there would be a consensus among historians in favour of Christianity. Clearly there is no such consensus therefore the arguments aren’t as strong as Christian wishful thinking supposes. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Though the trouble with just jumping to that response, for me, is that it's a far too matter-of-fact statement. Anyone with a knowledge of Biblical scripture can easily point to the large book and its history and quote/bore you to death if presented with that as a counterargument. The existence of multiple religions is problematic for anyone subscribing to a specific one, but I think it should be phrased more on the belief-evidence relationship rather than mentioning specific religions. If someone believes (as opposed to just "belief in belief") then their predictive evidence should be self evident and entangled in that belief. So, you can simply ask what differentiates more general theological arguments, that simply prove "there is a cause to the universe", from religious ones that attempt to prove "my one specific religion is right". That probably is better than mentioning something like ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology directly, as that would still give undue privilege to religious hypotheses and destroys any connection to living and existing religions, thus making them easier to dismiss as "ancient mythology" rather than "true religion". narchist 11:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)