accusing me of "changing the subject" when I'm asking you about your own direct statement is pathetic.

you made a claim, realized it refutes itself, and now you're endlessly repeating "less talky more punchy" because you can't defend it.

genuine 70 iq behavior looping the same sentence "but i did have breakfast this morning?"

You are confused laws exist because we prefer certain outcomes NOT that certain actions are inherently evil or good.

Using our earlier example of sex. Procreation is a wonderful activity and in fact is necessary for life. There is nothing inherently evil about it. We however have developed preferences around the act to avoid unfavorable outcomes. So we put restrictions around what you can or can't do as part of a social contracts. We call these contracts laws/rules. These laws are based on human preferences that we refined over 1000's of years and we will continue to refine them should they stop producing the outcomes we desire. New laws will be passed.

You have no way of knowing why certain things are bad or good because you think those things are part of magical being and you cannot know what his nature is and therefore no access to self agency.

, can you explain why you titled the thread the way you did?

Can you explain what it means for Christianity to be fake? What makes it obvious? And how you can prove it?

The onus is on the christian to prove god. When no proof is present it is safe to say something is fake. It is obvious that magic (resurrecting people from dead, summoning bears, walking on water, talking snakes, unicorns, cherubim, satyrs etc) is fake.

If its not obvious that magic is fake one would need to demonstrate magic is real in the first place. I am proving a negative here through argument to absurdity. If unicorns existed there would be fossil records, since they don't exist we have no reason to believe they did.

Christian apologist has no proof of his own but relies on others to disprove his claims with evidence. Claims which are often are unfalsifiable or an appeal to ignorance. Not only do they expect others to disprove their religion for them they reject other competing religions without evidence. So its only fair to use their method against them.

So when the court labels someone guilty of a violent felony, such as rape, which in everyday language, "violent" always describes something bad, they lied?

If the crime isn't bad, what is it? Give me the specific term that only addone knows.

What do you mean by fake? What does it mean for Christianity to be fake?

Do you mean intentionally fabricated?

Do you mean the central claims are false?

Do you mean you can say with certainty that the christian god isn't real?

It's not obvious what you mean by fake. It's a claim that lacks the specificity needed to be shown to be true or false.

Can you rephrase it?

*edit*

If you are saying we can reject their claims, then I agree. If you are saying we can say with certainty their claims are false, then I would put you in the same camp as them. That's making a claim that you can't prove.

*edit 2* - Specific claims can be shown to be false, but "christianity is fake" isn't a specific claim.

Can I replace the word fake with the word false? Are "Christianity is fake" and "Christianity is false" the same thing to you?

*edit 3* This is a "I can't vote on the proposition because it isn't specific enough to be evaluated, let alone falsified" situation.

This post was edited by x_h on Jul 22 2026 07:12pm

You are still not comprehending.
Violent doesn't always describe something bad. The court itself enforces with violence. Only certain violent actions are deemed bad because they produce undesirable outcomes that are based on prefence of majority


Everything is relative and conditional. For example we prefer violence in a boxing match we dont prefer violence on beating up your wife. You are engaging in binary thinking
Specific enough for you?

Surely animals have existed that we don't have a fossil record for. Unicorns could have existed without us having fossils to prove it.

You are right that we have no reason to believe they did, but that wouldn't be the same as saying we know they didn't exist.

Would you say that you know god doesn't exist or would you say we have no reason to believe god exists?

I would be okay with a statement such as "The likelihood of god being real and that god being exactly how Christianity describes god, is essentially 0%", but I wouldn't be okay with something like "There is 0% chance there is a god".

If we said we knew there isn't a god, we would be just as arrogant as them for saying they know there is a god.

This post was edited by x_h on Jul 22 2026 07:58pm

I personally don't want it to come down to a diagnoses for your wake up call. God knows what it will take to get through to you. One day you will have your Road to Damascus moment. It's just a matter of how extreme it will be when it does happen.

Thats why I said "obvious" (meaning apparent or self evident) not that its 100% certain or absolute truth. I am giving christians apologists an opportunity to produce evidence to support their claims and make it non obvious.
If there is a unicorn fossil they are welcome to submit it as evidence. Otherwise they cannot call bible as truth or their god real.

Through out this thread I have been posting different contradictions, scientific impossibilities that violate our current understanding and laws of physics that the bible claims as true. To reinforce my stance of why it is "obviously" fake.