CAN fine sounding arguments LESSEN the word of God?

Answer 1

In response to Hot Carl Sagan, here is why God is not ridiculous.
Here's something from the Christian apologist Ron Rhodes in his book, "Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics". Please read (Note: words/phrases in caps are actually italicized or bolded in the book, but I couldn't do that here).
"OBJECTION: GOD DOES NOT EXIST: Some Atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all Atheists, by definition, believe it.
ANSWERING THE OBJECTION: From a logical standpoint, this assertion is indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his or her own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time--with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe--can make such a statement based on the facts. Christian apologists Bob and Gretchen Passantino put it this way:
In order to prove with complete certainty that there are no
white crows anywhere in the universe, we would have to
search every portion of the universe thoroughly and
simultaneously (in case the white one flies away as we
approach). By analogy, to prove with complete certainty that
God does not exist would require virtually infinite knowledge of
the material world and the immaterial world and anything
hypothetically 'beyond' both states of existence.
In like manner, Ravi Zacharias observes that in 'postulating the nonexistence of God, Atheism immediately commits the blunder of an absolute negation, which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain the belief that there is no God, it has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge."' To put it another way, a person would have to BE God in order to SAY there is no God.
Robert Morey suggests this point can be forcefully made by asking [an] Atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items--books, magazines, journals, and so forth. Point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask, 'What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say is within your own pool of knowledge and experience?' The Atheist will likely respond, 'I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent.' You can then ask, 'Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?' Even if the Atheist refuses to admit the possibility, Morey says, you have made your point.
Some Atheists have wised up and recognized there is no way to prove God does not exist from their own pool of knowledge. Hence, some now refrain from arguing AGAINST the existence of God. They have turned the tables and hold that the burden of proof is on Christians to prove that God DOES exist. Atheist George Smith thus writes, 'When the Atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything.' Of course the fatal flaw with this line of argumentation is that once you say 'I lack a belief in God', you have in fact AFFIRMED a religious 'belief', and are therefore now required to prove it."
So...does that seem to lessen the potency of Christianity and God's Word to you guys?
Oh, and alex_azender, I'm not quite sure why you think I hate you and rant on about random things...perhaps you've met "fundies" that aren't true Christians. That IS possible. Believing the Bible is infallible does not imply Christianity, only true belief and trust in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior does.

Answer 2

I used to believe that the Trinity was a pagan doctrine. I had all the Bible quotes at my fingertips. Then I became a Christian. When I did, it was the person of Christ who shone through, and it was a revelation. You see, I had not realised that I had to worship him. Bit like the cart before the horse - I was so convinced that Jesus was not God that I had failed to realise his divinity. Until the Holy Spirit got to work on me, that is. Then it all became crystal clear. I had been listening to the reasoning and the thinking of men. The arguments presented against the triune nature of the Godhead were formidable. Then the Holy Spirit and the Word of God broke through my barriers. Praise God! Interesting that Hope of the Kingdom thinks people brought up to believe the Trinity cannot see past it. Yet my experience was the opposite.

Answer 3

Organized religion is ruining the word of God, and is most of the reason that I am an atheist. The teachings in the Bible are vague so as to inspire thought and allow people to come to their own insights. This would be brilliant except for human nature. Anyone with a large enough vocabulary can twist the words to suit their own desires, and if they can convince enough people, who are desperately seeking guidance and truth, that their interpretation is correct then they have a religion. If you need examples then look at anyone from David Koresh to Osama Bin Laden. If the Bible was clearer and more specific then it wouldn't leave room for the verbal two-stepping of such charlatans.
People will believe anything if they want to believe its true, or if they are afraid that it is true. Use this and you too can have your own flock of sheep that you can lead baying to whatever end you so desire.

Answer 4

No. Just because an argument sounds good doesn't mean that it's right. God's Word has stood the test of time and out-lived many of it's critics. In a day of technology and scientific discovery, many intelligent people still believe it to be true.

Answer 5

Even simple arguments accomplish that quite easily.

Alternately, you can just let the Fundies rant on with all their hate and intolerance and that accomplishes it as well.

Answer 6

You don't need a pretty argument to illustrate how ridiculous "god" is.

Answer 7

Ithink if we could agree we can make it

Answer 8

They could, if you made your "point" only to keep on talking and "blunt" it!