I answer this. Refuting falsehoods and nonsense.
Perhaps it's time for neurogenesis?
I answer this. To say there is not tangible or empirical evidence to prove the existence of God can be a positive claim, however, there is no such negation to prove that there can not be a God. If you observe this persons slippery slope, you will identify the fundamental flaw in their first precept. "The only proof of God’s existence is found in a religious text or a church." I'm glad hazzrat has discredited thousands of years of scholastics and philosophy which argue for the existence or at least ascertain to a positive claim of a greater likelihood of their position being a truthful proposition. I could list a multiplicity of arguments that 'prove' the existence of God, yet, we all know what this person is asking for is a convolution of our contemporary understanding of what it would mean to 'prove' for a positive proposition. By the same criteria that you apply to the existence of God claiming the only prerequisite to make you believe would be empirical evidence of God, I will challenge you here today. Provide me proof and demonstrate the existence of abstracts and things that are axiomatic in our universe. I'll await your shocking new discovery to prove universals and abstracts, I've been stimulated by such an incredible idea. The scientific method is mostly indifferent to religion because not only does belief require a degree of uncertainty, in which science still does but less to an extent, one pertains to describing the nature and mechanisms of what is created whereas the other pertains to a deeper metaphysical philosophy and ethical frameworks.
This is not how theistic worldviews operate and I'm so glad you brought up logical fallacies. I'll give you a simple dichotomy.
1. You either concede to the idea that you were strawmanning the majority of theists positions or for that matter christians worldview whereby I'm accusing you of having not digressed from inherent biases and prejudices and instead assumed the position of theists.
2. If you reject the first option then I will be accusing you of an anecdotal fallacy and an argument from silence due to your conceiving your own heuristic by your own personal experience and generalised it as a worldview for most Christians.
On the premise of conceding to intellectual dishonesty, all theists have the same first objective precept to at least provide arguments for a deistic worldview such that a God, a deity, a creator exists. This does not occur from your irrational statements above. This can occur from a multiplicity of arguments such as Leibniz contingency argument, St Thomas Aquinas' argument from motion etc. It seems you have some intrinsic bias against Christianity in which you keep trying to prove against Christianity, not theism which entails the belief in a God, exclusive to a religion. Once this has been achieved, to prove FOR a theistic worldview you provide your case for your religion. This can include historical precedence, comparative archaeological evidence, Patristics, Scholasticism, scholarly observance. It seems in addition you just discredited hermeneutics, which all christians use to interpret the bible. I suggest you research into hermeneutics to observe how theists provide a multiplicity of connotations for their respective literature.
Just critically evaluating this persons case, you can see they have no intention of actually addressing the merits of their argument against theism and instead want to scrutinise Christianity because of some profound hatred for it. Even if I were to grant you that the bible does contain errors, Catholics and most Christians don't hold to the idea that the bible is the literal word of God, an attribute of God. They affirm Absolute Divine Simplicity in addition to the authors of the bible being divinely inspired and guided yet not infallible because they are still men and women, unlike Islam which claims the quran is the literal word of God and cannot contain errors. I do not affirm that there are certain errors in the bible, yet, I do not deny the possibility that there can be errors made throughout history such as a scribal error which would have virtually no effect on the bible and its message. It seems like you do not even know this most basic belief, once again constructing an argument from silence.
I decided to leave out all of this evidence of the horrible 'atrocities' of religion because I quite frankly feel it's irrelevant when I can answer this very easily. The actions of fallible individuals have no bearing upon what the doctrine of Christianity preaches. You don't project hate onto the religion, you detest the perpetrators of such heinous actions. I mean seriously, how can you criticise a religion that preaches not to kill because individuals who never were even considered to be real christians killed people. Should I make a hasty generalisation and say since an atheist shot someone and killed them unjustifiably all atheists are therefore murderers. Why do you decide to bring up such an argument that doesn't even pertain to the existence of God to criticise a certain religion? This pertains to the influence of religion and its necessity in society not to the existence of God. I'll repeat this again, someone who does not practice Christianity is not a Christian. To practice Christianity means to believe and to follow what the bible teaches. If it does teach not to kill people and another persons murders someone, they are not Christian.
