Thing is, there’s no evidence that there’s a “baby”. Just lots and lots of bathwater, and people claiming that you can see the baby if you just believe hard enough.
And the baby in question is supposed to be a square triangle, at that. An impossibility.
Nitpick: tack.
By most standards what makes a Christian is acceptance of Jesus’s message, death, and resurrection. The first two are perfectly natural, and the last only goes against reality if you don’t believe in God. As Christians do believe in God…do you see my point? The belief structure is internally consistent and does not conflict with any established scientific facts, it merely posits the existence of a being you do not accept. Christianity is not illogical then, merely ambitious.
Then welcome to a world full of illogical people. I hope you enjoy your stay.
It’s a fair and important point. I have resolved it to my personal satisfaction, believing that the Gospels are a human account of true events. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me but I see nothing inherently wrong with it.
Oh edit button, where are you when I need you?
If God is the Author of the natural world, then everything we know, in a sense, comes from God. That doesn’t mean people can’t misperceive, remember wrong, or make mistakes. And how do you know that God doesn’t lie sometimes to teach us to think for ourselves? 
:rolleyes: Even ignoring that Christianity talks about a lot more than that, that most certainly violates known physical laws. And believing in God is part of what makes Christianity irrational. “It’s sane except for the crazy part” isn’t much of a defense.
Living in a world of destructive, malignant lunatics has it’s downsides.
How does a article on WorldNetDaily about a guy who wrote a book become a tenet of conservatism? I bet all liberals think like that.
If Christians are bonafide nutjobs, then KSG is Mr. Peanut. Don’t let him get you riled up.
Whoosh.
If some parts are not to be believed why should we believe any of it? How are we to know what parts are true?
Sigh… my first one… <skulks away>
The entire concept of “God” – the Christian God, at least – is inherently illogical and fanciful. Christians claim that God loves ALL humans, even those who don’t believe in him; and yet, those who don’t accept the divinity of Jesus Christ will die and go to hell and burn forever. That is core Christian doctrine – if you don’t believe in Jesus, you go to hell. Frankly, I think many Christians maintain their faith because they fear going to hell – they selfishly believe in Christ “just in case”, as Pascal’s Wager attests.
“God” is supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and can perform great miracles on a whim, such as making the sun move backwards across the sky. If he’s so bloody powerful – why hasn’t he performed any obvious miracles since the 1st Century A.D.? If God really wanted us to believe in him, you’d think he’d make it a little more obvious, don’t you think?
The only evidence of “God” is a 2,000-year-old book which is internally inconsistent and historically non-factual. That’s a spurious reason to believe in God (aside from cultural & family factors, which I agree are thorny issues); faced with that choice, I’d rather obey the voices inside my head.
You do realize that this is exactly the religious fundamentalists’ response to claims that science/the scientific method is a valid tool for analyzing reality?
I don’t even know what to think of that remark. Are you suggesting that the omnipotent being that created everything from nothing can’t get his message across to mere humans? He could bring people back from the dead, talk to people through burning bushes and stone tablets but couldn’t get the ear of a few monks who were already in His house? Frankly, that’s preposterous. The unreasonable standard was set by your God.
What broader points?
I disagree. They misuse scientific principals to try to make it appear so.
Okay, when was that? I HAVE to read that thread.
This. This, this, a thousand times this.
This thread is hilarious. KGS of all people says a particular bunch of believers in a superstition are bonafide nutjobs and things like “logic” and “proof” are meaningless to them and someone took it seriously? Great Og on a pogo stick, now I really have read it all.
KGS is in the inner court of woo-woos. His own abilities at logic and proof would be embarrassing in a five year old. He hasn’t sufficient nous to keep a consistent line of “argument” going for two posts runningwhile attempting to convince others about his weird and wonderful beliefs in all manner of woo.
Go yell at the wind for blowing. It’ll do as much good.
Why don’t you ask Autolycus about his mother’s flat tire?
Will that improve your abilities with logic and proof?
First of all, it’s not my god. I’m an atheist; I don’t have a god. Secondly, there’s a considerable amount of distance between “inspired by God” and “the inerrant word of God.” Biblical inerrancy is not a necessary article of the Christian faith. In fact, it’s a rather recent addition, first gaining popularity (IIRC) sometime in the 19th century. Many, if not most, Christians do not subscribe to this philosophy, regarding the Bible instead as the human interpretation of real historical events. Like all human endeavors, it is therefore open to errors in understanding, interpretation, and intent. To these Christians, the Bible is an important part of their faith, but it is not the source of their faith. They do not believe in the Bible, they believe in God. If their understanding of God (which in their belief system is akin to a direct, personal relationship) contradicts the Bible, then it is the Bible that is in error, not God.
As a side note, one atheist to another, if you’re going to argue against a belief system, you really should take the time to learn what that belief system actually is. This sort of basic, easily remedied ignorance really puts a hole in your attempts to pass yourself off as intellectually superior to the poor, benighted theists.