Atheists, can Christianity be debunked fully?

[cloudyday2]

My faith in Christianity has withered to the point that I have a hard time imagining ever believing again, but I like to double-check my conclusions periodically.

So I started in the style of a proof by counter example. Assume Christianity in some basic and standard form is true. Can I find a counter example to debunk this assumption to my satisfaction? Or must I rely on the lack of positive evidence and unlikeliness of Christian claims?

Is there some core assumption of Christianity shared by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox (so that nobody can dodge the bullet) and then a counter example that would convince a reasonable person that this core assumption is extremely unlikely if not impossible?

EDIT: And exclude the assumptions from Christian scholasticism such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. I don't consider those things core assumptions. A core assumption might be "the crucifixion served a divine purpose". That's the type of thing I'm after.

 

[cloudyday2]

An example that I have often considered is this:

Assume the Christianity represented by the early Church fathers (Ignatious, Irenaeous, etc.) was what Jesus had intended for His followers. Show from the sayings of Jesus and the religious heritage of Jesus that the Christianity that emerged 100 years after the crucifixion was not something that Jesus would have recognized or accepted.

 

[archer75]

This isn't really the sort of thing that can be falsified, is it?

I don't mean because my faith thing says EO. I mean...how would one debunk any matter of faith?

 

[cloudyday2]

This isn't really the sort of thing that can be falsified, is it?

I don't mean because my faith thing says EO. I mean...how would one debunk any matter of faith?

Christianity is partially based on a historical narrative. For example, if the words of Jesus demonstrate that an apocalypse was expected in 20 years, then Christianity is kaput in my opinion. All these things of course can be denied by those who aren't willing to look with skepticism.

 

[archer75]

Christianity is partially based on a historical narrative.

Sure, but much of that narrative consists of supernatural events. Accepting them isn't on the basis of purely logical thought, so rejecting them wouldn't be either. No?

 

[cloudyday2]

Sure, but much of that narrative consists of supernatural events. Accepting them isn't on the basis of purely logical thought, so rejecting them wouldn't be either. No?

See the edit I just made to the post above with respect to the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is the type of thing I'm looking for. Of course no case against Christianity is going to be bullet proof or persuade all.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Christianity is partially based on a historical narrative. For example, if the words of Jesus demonstrate that an apocalypse was expected in 20 years, then Christianity is kaput in my opinion. All these things of course can be denied by those who aren't willing to look with skepticism.

That's because you do not understand what Jesus was here to accomplish in His life.

His life and death accomplished COMPLETELY different things.

Maybe you don't realize that.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's because you do not understand what Jesus was here to accomplish in His life.

His life and death accomplished COMPLETELY different things.

Maybe you don't realize that.

Maybe you can explain the difference you see?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Maybe you can explain the difference you see?

If you understand that Jesus ONLY came for the Jews in life. Many verses spell it out specifically.

All Jesus words were for the Jews. That was their chance to embrace Christ and not reject Him. To see Him as their Messiah promised to them specifically by God.

ONLY in death and after His death and ressurection, did the New Covenant come into affect, which is the covenant for all Jew AND Gentile.

So, in life, Christ was only for the Jews.

In death and after all sin debt, for all people was PAID. IN that, the New Covenant began.

Understanding that Jesus entire life, until the moment of death was the Jews time to realize He is their Messiah. Once He died, that time was over and in His death He became the High Priest of the New Covenant.

We have the time of the gentiles now in that with the Jewish rejection of Him, God has blessed us. Not that the Jews are not God's chosen people still, they are. But God says He has hardened their hearts to bring in a time of the gentiles, since they rejected the Messiah God sent them

 

[HitchSlap]

For me, I decided to apply the “outsiders” test to my faith, and I began to realize that the same justifications used for my faith, could be used to justify belief in any faith. Over the course of about a decade, my faith began to unravel, and I realized my need to believe true things, trumped my need to believe.

 

[archer75]

Huh. It always surprises me to hear people say this kind of thing. Just because - as I said above - I don't think a religion is the kind of thing that can be "debunked" (or "bunked"). Very interesting.

 

[Larniavc]

Maybe you can explain the difference you see?

My understanding is that in life he taught people how to know God and in death he took our sins so we could make it to heaven.

But I’m a no good atheist so I may be miles off.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure, but much of that narrative consists of supernatural events. Accepting them isn't on the basis of purely logical thought, so rejecting them wouldn't be either. No?

If accepting supernatural events is not purely a process of logic and reason, then what other criteria is used?

 

[ToBeLoved]

For me, I decided to apply the “outsiders” test to my faith, and I began to realize that the same justifications used for my faith, could be used to justify belief in any faith. Over the course of about a decade, my faith began to unravel, and I realized my need to believe true things, trumped my need to believe.

I have to love how you say ‘believe true things’ because most things considered truth is subjective and you cannot prove God doesn’t exist.

So there is not truth in your perceived truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have to love how you say ‘believe true things’ because most things considered truth is subjective and you cannot prove God doesn’t exist.

So there is not truth in your perceived truth.

Is is more true, or less true, to believe a thing that cannot be proven?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Is is more true, or less true, to believe a thing that cannot be proven?

If it cannot be proven or disproven, truth is not known.

You have some odd thinking about truth.

Personally I wouldn’t roll the dice on eternity. That’s a long, long, long time if your wrong.

Like going ‘all in’ in poker with no hand at all

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If accepting supernatural events is not purely a process of logic and reason, then what other criteria is used?

Well, since there does seem to be various intractable complexities involved with any one of us in fully justifying all of our beliefs about the world to anyone else, not too mention the added complications due to a lack of identical perceptions, along with the "Problem of the Criterion" which exist as Roderick Chisholm pointed out...

...then, I find that the best we can do is ADD to our existing uses of various Logics the processes of Hermeneutics, thereby amplifying the use of our reasoning.

The point is, there's a lot to sort out, and we all know this. So, using various forms of logic alone, without allowing more expansive considerations for other contexts, will likely prevent us from even coming to a place where may attempt to "look up" in a spiritual sense. We might unnecessarily close ourselves off from some possible religious truth simply because we decide that logic alone is ample enough to achieve all the truth we think we need when applying our reason to the world.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Larniavc]

Personally I wouldn’t roll the dice on eternity. That’s a long, long, long time if your wrong.

It’s a long time if you back the wrong god.

You’re not rolling a dice between God and nothing you’re rolling the dice between God, all the various other creator gods and nothing.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, since there does seem to be various intractable complexities involved with any one of us in fully justifying all of our beliefs about the world to anyone else, not too mention the added complications due to a lack of identical perceptions, along with the "Problem of the Criterion" which exist as Roderick Chisholm pointed out...

The fastest way to get a cold beer on the valley floor is to jump from the top of Half Dome without a parachute. Is this an unjustified belief, or are there "various intractable complexities" I should consider before jumping?

...then, I find that the best we can do is ADD to our existing uses of various Logics the processes of Hermeneutics, thereby amplifying the use of our reasoning.

And what of these "various Logics the processes of Herneneutics, thereby amplifying the use of our reasoning" can tell us if I should jump or not? I mean, drinking a cold beer in 23 seconds sure beats 8 miles of trail and 6 hours of hiking.

The point is, there's a lot to sort out, and we all know this. So, using various forms of logic alone, without allowing more expansive considerations for other contexts, will likely prevent us from even coming to a place where may attempt to "look up" in a spiritual sense. We might unnecessarily close ourselves off from some possible religious truth simply because we decide that logic alone is ample enough to achieve all the truth we think we need when applying our reason to the world.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

The last thing I would want to do is close myself off from the possibility of reaching the valley floor in less than a minute, vs. 6 hours.

Peace.

 

[HitchSlap]

double post