

Is there a God? - Navarr
http://completehistory.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/is-there-a-god/

======
futurist
If each point could be refuted, and an alternative explanation provided, would
the OP listen anyway?

~~~
Gregorein
[ I am posting this on blog aswell ]

Let me try. Because you like Wikipedia, so will I. But i'll be cropping your
arguments if they are too long, I will still answer the whole, original
"argument". Please realise, though, that this is not answered by a priest nor
scholar, but a believing student that shares his point of view on "common
sense". i'll also accent words by _underscoring_ not CAPSING because it
focuses way nicer.

Dear erisblastar

"1\. My first reason for losing belief was that I learned evolution is true.
(...)"

If your argument is based on dissing with a "Christianity cannot immediately
explain away" concept, it's not an argument. Does a discussion require a
clock? I find this more of a neutral statement. As of the evolution - it's
just a theory that may or may not be true. How come other animals didn't
evolve to create hivemind or other exotic form of civilisation?

"2\. On that note, one of the historical problems of the Bible is that there
is absolutely no evidence for any Adam or Garden of Eden. In fact, there is
much evidence against it, most of it from the findings that support
evolution."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden#Proposed_locatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden#Proposed_locations)
While we are talking about the Garden - there was no apple, but a "fruit" due
to error with translations in ancient times of past.

Adam:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam#Etymology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam#Etymology)
same goes for Eve:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Etymology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve#Etymology)
let's also accept:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Scientific_communi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Scientific_community_criticism)
I know also of a translation in my language, that instead of "Adam and Eve"
uses the "the Man" and "That-of-the-Man".

While I don't prove that Garden existed, it may be treated like a story.

"3\. Another historical problem with the Bible is that it is abundantly clear
to any student of geography that there has never been a global flood. There
cannot have been. There’s no evidence from the rocks. Besides, there isn’t
enough water on the planet."

That's a good one :) It is true - there is not enough _fluid_ water on the
planet. Lets grab the glacers then! also - there _is_ evidence:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity)
I see here at least 5 good hypotheses.

"4\. Further, not even Abraham is a historical character. He is a literary
invention, as even Wikipedia shows."

Well, if wikipedia says so. But even Wikipedia is _unsure_ wherever he did or
did not exist.

"5\. Continuing the historical problems, Moses is another character from the
Bible who never existed. There was no wandering through the desert for 40
years, and no plagues of Egypt, and no Commandments from Mount Sanai. I’m not
a historian and this is meant to be brief, so I’m not presenting the evidence
for these last few assertions, but these Biblical figures being fictional is
almost as commonly accepted among historians as evolution is among biologists.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity)

I have to comment on your "haste". If you want me to take this argument
seriously, please: present evidence.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#Historicity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#Historicity)

"6\. On a different hand, there are several moral problems with Christianity
and/or the Bible. In particular, the Bible forbids neither slavery nor rape.
Indeed, it allows the beating of slaves as long as they don’t die for at least
a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21). In the case of rape, the woman can be put to
death for adultery if she doesn’t scream loud enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) or
be forced to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Clearly, these are NOT
moral positions! (If you disagree, please seek help.)"

So. I disagree. Grab Catechism of the Catholic Church if you're looking for
law regarding men. Also I have _never_ seen, heard etc of using Deuteronomy in
our "time".

Is this a problem with Christianity? No.

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&v...](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&version=KJV)
Bible doesn't forbid slavery and rape? I. It's the Old Testament. II. From
what I know slavery isn't forbidden because it's common (do you realise I'm
talking about the times author wrote the Deutheronomy?). III. Because rape is
not forbidden it _does NOT_ mean it's allowed. (sorry for using KJV)

"7\. Further, many sects of Christianity still forbid all forms of
homosexuality, masturbation, and extramarital sex. While we should certainly
not approve of cheating, there is no reason to forbid other consenting acts of
sex. (...)"

O. Sects? Okay... I. How does this prove || disprove God? II. Because
homosexuality is unnatural event. We (so do I) believe that God created "Adam
and Eve". That's how babies are not born. III. Wet dreams? Show me quote of
the Bible concerning this. IIII. Love is not only about senseless and
brainless pleasure. V. You say before God, that you love her/him (your spouse)
and next few years you say: "well, God. I don't love her but I love another
one. Sorry but I made a mistake". There may be good reasons for divorce,
that's why it's not forbidden, but _strongly_ and often denied (more of a last
resort).

"8\. Another moral problem with Christianity, or at least many sects of it, is
that it forbids abortion and contraception. There is no moral argument for
forbidding contraception. It does not end a life; it prevents one from
beginning. (...)"

My, you are totally wrong and you even don't know it.

I. _If_ "There is no moral argument for forbidding contraception. It does not
end a life;" Well done, you just used your own argument to prove, that if
purpose of _abortion is to end life_ (KILLS) it is morally "wrong / bad /
evil". II. Contraception pills? You mean those hormones and chemicals women
take, and then the fertilized egg can't merge(?) with womb? It's the _same_ as
abortion, but here the child doesn't have the body which could defend it from
killing her.

The problem with abortion is not due to killing - we all should know that's
bad. The problem lies in rape.

"However, if it is entirely illegal, it leads to women being thrown in jail
for miscarriages." Please - evidence. I need to use arguments, so i need
sources."

"To me, this alone is enough to convince that abortion needs to be legal for
at least the first trimester." This is becoming absurd. Hey, lets kill someone
if we "just don't have the time to be a parent". Absurd: Yes, it's legal to
kill during first trimester, but you shan't kill a second after. Who gave you
right to decide of life and death?

