How To Refute Christianity

I liked this blog post, so thought I would share the link for you all. Enjoy!

How To Refute Christianity

6 responses to this post.

  1. How to prove Christianity: ignore the burden of proof.


    • Nice turn of phrase, but if you really believed that you must believe no Christians make positive arguments for Christianity. The proliferation of texts, blogs and books on the subject would seem to invalidate that, as would the many debates William Lane Craig has conducted over the years.

      Besides, I’ve done several of those myself here, so do you honestly believe that no Christians accept any burden of proof?

      Finally, the blog post I linked to actually does make those arguments as part of a “burden of proof.” The first law of thermodynamics, the law of biogenesis, the existence of Jesus, the absence of Jesus’ body–these are all excellent reasons to believe that Christianity is true. What the author is challenging objectors to do is either 1) show how these concepts are incompatible with Christianity, or 2) show how these concepts are false. These are common elements to any rebuttal, so the author is not asking for anything unreasonable here, but rather an empirical response.

      So while I appreciate what you’re getting at, it really doesn’t make any sense for you to share that sentiment here.


  2. Hahaha, I have to say this article made me laugh. I’ve seen stuff like this before, which attempts to ‘disprove atheism’, normally in a scientific way. I have to chuckle. xD


    • Thanks Larry. It seems to me like you guys are sort of missing the point on this. As I said to the other commenter, it’s not that the author is attempting to disprove atheism. It’s that he’s using accepted scientific principles and laws, saying these give us excellent reasons to believe that the Christian worldview is true, and challenging the disbeliever to refute the positive argument. In essence, what the author is doing is giving the atheist the floor to make a positive case for atheism. It would be very easy for one to say, “The first law of thermodynamics is shown to be false, therefore, atheism is most likely true.” It’s a testable principle that if shown to be false would make the case for atheism very strong.

      So what it’s doing is not disproving atheism, but allowing atheism to prove itself with its own positive arguments. So while you may think the notion is funny, it’s actually quite a reasonable position I think, and I dare say that scoffing instead of studying doesn’t really do a strong service to your position on this.

      Regardless, thanks for stopping by! 🙂


      • Us “guys”? Who does that collectively refer to?

        Anyway, those laws are a non-factor in religion and in atheism. They are irrelevant to both

      • “You guys” refers to you and the poster before you.

        And while the laws might not matter to one’s faith, they definitely matter to one’s belief. Otherwise you have to separate your belief from reality. The laws are a reality, unless they’re falsified. The jibe with my belief as a Christian. So they’re definitely fair game.

Leave a Reply to sabepashubbo Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: