The Anti-theist Thread

[Andúril]

1) Start another thread.

Done.

2) Slow down and listen when you're answered.

Slow down? Why? No one has brought up any issues pertaining to the Review, or any feedback whatsoever. I should assume people view it as a sinister fairytale story book, and the pace is just right. If you would like to bring up points of contention, perhaps you could just state this if you don't have the time at the moment to devote toward it.

1)God created the heavens and the earth.

What about the rest of the universe? And proposed metaphysical concepts, such as the soul?

2)Man is fallen and in need of serious help.

What do you mean by "fallen"? What reason do you have that is independant of biblical doctrine, that implies we (Mankind) are unable to "make it" on our own?

3)Jesus Christ was the son of God. He was both fully human and fully divine.

But they also submit that He was God in the flesh. That would be much more descriptive than saying he was the son of God. And much less misleading.

4)Christ provided paid for us all through his death and ressurection.

Whatever that means. The assumption is that we are in some or other spiritual state of "moral" debt.

5)Accepting him as your savior is the only way.

Only way for what? "Salvation"? This follows from the assumption in point 4. In fact everything here follows from assumptions...

First of all, I do think this is sort of like endorsing tolkien to someone who doesn't like books

The assumption that non-theists don't like gods is born from your own mind. I could ask someone to argue for their belief in the invisible pink flying edible unicorn, but that has nothing to so with my emotional opinion on the subject. I might like the concept, or I might not. That is totally not the point. Rather, for the sake of the exercise that AE has charged you with, assume the most intellectually honest mindset that you can, and argue your beliefs to yourself. We'll listen.

Compare this to other creation stories, for example...

Plus the ones that you haven't heard about, and the possibility that nobody has heard the "actual" account, as a result of circumstances such as inability of communication by an impersonal being. Really, showing that your doctrine is more plausible than others does not on its own necessitate the truth of it. But this is true with all things, is it not?

God simply creates matter, space, and time out of energy

So energy was just "there"? Shouldn't you say that God created energy as well?

...he just causes them to exist.

How?

If mankind can better itself...

What exactly do you mean by "better"? That Mankind is "better" if they can jump nine meters instead of eight? Or are you talking about spiritually or morally better?

Christianity makes it clear- we can't do it ourselves, and we need help.

And let me guess - Christianity is the only way, right?

...but it certainly makes more sense, doesn't it?

Only if you presuppose the existence of a deity and you think you owe it/him/her something. Or if you fear that the deity will smite you if you don't.

I have a problem with your attempts at showing the plausibility of your religion. It's not necessarily the technical aspects, even though I did bring up some issues. No, it's the necessity of religion. You need to show why any religion is necessary, before you show which one is the most plausible.