120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's not the truth until the "hard evidence" is in?

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other; Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence - at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but nobody else need care about them.

You are not entitled to your own facts; facts are universal. Ignore them at your peril.

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other;

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --

And without the hard evidence, they are not true?

So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.

There are plenty of other examples of this principle.

E.g., the benefits or non-benefits of vitamins, or vitamin supplements, or megadoses of some vitamins.

Didn't Linus Pauling provide "hard evidence" of the benefits of megadoses of vitamin C as a cure or prevention of cancer? Didn't this Nobel-Prize-winning scientist have scientific proof, based on experiments and tests in which he verified the results?

What about the environment and the "facts" about global warming and CO2 emissions?

There is no "hard evidence" yet that CO2 emissions are causing some of the current bad weather conditions, but most environmentalists believe this is causing those bad weather conditions. So then this belief of most environmentalists is not true? Only when the "hard evidence" is produced will that belief become a fact? But for now, that belief is not true?

So the truth changes when "hard evidence" is produced? Before the "hard evidence," it's not true, but when that evidence is produced, then it becomes true?

So we should not act on any danger of global warming or excess CO2 emissions until the "hard evidence" is in? Until then, there is no danger, because it is not true that the danger exists until after the "hard evidence" is in, and all the "soft evidence" and common sense and good reasons for the fear should be ignored?

. . . at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.

So at a certain point the "hard evidence" is in and the truth changes. Those "beliefs" which before were not "facts" were not the truth, but then those beliefs turned into "facts" when the "hard evidence" was produced. Prior to the "hard evidence" that smoking was harmful, the truth was that it was not harmful. But then, at that point that the "hard evidence" was found, then the truth changed and smoking became harmful, whereas before then it did no harm -- right?

And likewise, with CO2 emissions, until the "hard evidence" is in, there is no harm from those CO2 emissions. None of these hurricanes and floods etc. are caused by global warming until the "hard evidence" is in that proves it, so we need not do anything about it, because it's only belief and not "facts" until we have the hard evidence.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but nobody else need care about them.

I'm glad I cared about those beliefs they preached at me in Sunday School about the harmful effects of smoking. And that I doubted the "hard evidence" or "facts" presented by the tobacco companies. Sometimes it's good to "care about" what is true, even if the "hard evidence" is not yet in.

I was tempted to take up smoking, and possibly would have, but I was afraid because of those "beliefs" they kept pounding into my head. I saw some of my heros, like Joe Friday and Perry Mason, who smoked heavily, and I wanted to be like them.

You are not entitled to your own facts;

Right, you have to accept the real "facts" that were proved by the tobacco company scientists because they had "hard evidence."

facts are universal. Ignore them at your peril.

So it was "at your peril" to believe those warnings against the dangers of smoking and ignore the "facts" from the tobacco company scientists? How many died of lung cancer because they trusted those "facts"? And how many are alive today because they did not wait until the "hard evidence" was in but believed the warnings and ignored those tobacco company "facts"?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If you want to bash Christianity, find something unique to it, or something that began with Christ, and which you think led to disaster.

"bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and SLAUGHTER THEM in my presence!" (Luke 19:27)

You say He said it, right?

No, he didn't say it.

The Orthodox Christian Church hierarchy established by Him, . . .

No, there's no reason to believe Christ established any hierarchy.

. . . took it as an instruction and as being their sacred duty, slaughtering non-Christians and 'heretics' beyond numbering for over a thousand years.

But you're bashing Christianity for something that it inherited from the already-existing culture. It did not initiate slaughter and war and violence. This was already going on long before Christ, and these same ones would have slaughtered people anyway, in the name of someone else, if there had never been any Christ or Christianity.

If you want to bash Christianity, you need to find something unique to it, not something it inherited from the previous human tradition/culture.

There is not enough white-wash in creation to ever cover up the bloody works of the murderous zombie Jezuz death cult christer religion.

So you can't find anything wrong with Christianity per se?

Do you also blame Karl Marx and Marxism for the slaughter of more millions in Russia and China?

The slaughtering you're talking about is something that goes on anyway, and would have happened anyway. Just because those in power seize on a particular ideology in the name of which to do their slaughtering does not mean that the particular ideology they chose is at fault for the crimes they commit.

It would not be a good "reason to reject" Marxism to argue that Marxism led to the slaughtering of so many millions of Russians and Chinese. Those same millions would have been slaughtered anyway.

 

[Juma]

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Of course. The true dicotomy is between "just belief" and "justified belief". You can never know wether a belief is true or falsr, only wether it is justified or not.
And your example with smoking is just so wrong: it was known for a long time that smoking is harmful.

 

[DBT]

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

Evidence also tells us that human beings tend to protect thier own interests. Tobacco companies tend to ignore or deflect evidence in order to maintain their sales, religion ignores the fact that there is no evidence to support their core beliefs, the existence of their God or gods, yet mainatins and teaches these faith based beliefs as if they were justified truth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you want to bash Christianity, you need to find something unique to it, not something it inherited from the previous human tradition/culture.

No, we don't need to do that. If Christainity does something bad, then it's bad, whether it's only christains who do it, or every occult tradition. Bad is bad, Lumpy.
If Christainity doesn't lead to a superior moral code, then why think it's any better than any other ideology?
You'd think that the one religion actually sponsored by a real god would be different, huh?

It's also pretty apparent that you reject most of the religions of the world without knowing spit about them. You don't know what they teach, or what's unique/common, yet you feel confident to dismiss them as being lesser attempts to create religions than the one you pretend to be agnostic about.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would not be a good "reason to reject" Marxism to argue that Marxism led to the slaughtering of so many millions of Russians and Chinese. Those same millions would have been slaughtered anyway.

What an incredible argument.
People who died in the crusades to reconquer the Holy Lands for the Holy Christain Empire would have been slaughtered anyway? For what, do you think?
Without Christainity, the men and women burned for witchcraft would have been burned for....What, exactly?

So you're saying that a serial killer is not to be scorned for his behavior, because maybe a different serial killer would have claimed those victims?
Or maybe a series of muggers instead of one serial killer?
How the fuck does this argument make any sense to you, Lumpy?

People who claim to be washed in the blood of the Lamb have done some horrible things in his name, but that's not the fault of Christainity per se, because they'd have done the exact same thing in the name of Mithras? Or one of the other miracle-performing demigods that were popular for a while over the years?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --

And without the hard evidence, they are not true?

So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.

Lucky you.
However.
Don't you think it might have been better for everyone if this 'common sense' came with actual evidence? Then your church might have been able to convince other people that it was a bad thing. Then your 'belief' might have been accepted by people who did not accept your church as an authority.

Without evidence, then one church's belief that smoking was bad is no different from another church's belief that smoking was good for you. Without evidence, neither one was in a position to convince bystanders that they were offering facts.

I have relatives who believe the most moral stance is not to trust anyone who won't drink with you. They won't do business with anyone who's afraid to let their hair down and get at least a little tipsy. Of course, i also have relatives who think alcohol is sinful and defiles the body and risks the soul. They drink grape juice for the sacrament.
The one side can't offer evidence that teatotallers WILL cheat you in a contract.
The other side can't offer evidence that anyone has a soul.

Which side is wrong? Can't tell.

So, yes, while it's reduced to a belief, without evidence, the any one is just as valid (or just as invalid) as any other.

I was taught not to smoke, too.
And not to drink.
And not to masturbate.
And not to do a lot of things.
The reason offered most often was 'Because God.'

If that's the argument, then once someone stops believing in that god, one stops believing in those prohibitions. Which worked out well. I'd never have gotten so happily married if i'd listened to all the 'don'ts' i grew up with. I don't really see a downside of rejecting evidence-free, god-based prohibitions and looking for actual evidence.

 

[Underseer]

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other;

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

If you can demonstrate that something is true, then it's not a belief, it's a fact. He even said so right there in the text you quoted.

If you cannot demonstrate that something is true, it is exactly as valid as any other claim you can't prove. Furthermore, if you can't demonstrate that something is true, you can't say that it is true, nor can you say that you know it.

 

[OLDMAN]

A couple of things:
First, beliefs are knowledge or the assumption of knowledge of things outside of our sensory perceptions. eg: I believe my car is in the driveway where I left it.

Secondly: We chose the God(s) we need. So in the beginning the Jews needed a God that favored them over their enemies. Today we need a personal savior not a Jewish messiah. At the end of the day (really simplifying things) God is a reflection of mankind's collective consciousness of what we think we need...love, justice, truth, victory (over what we perceive to be in our way).

 

[Underseer]

A couple of things:
First, beliefs are knowledge or the assumption of knowledge of things outside of our sensory perceptions. eg: I believe my car is in the driveway where I left it.

Secondly: We chose the God(s) we need. So in the beginning the Jews needed a God that favored them over their enemies. Today we need a personal savior not a Jewish messiah. At the end of the day (really simplifying things) God is a reflection of mankind's collective consciousness of what we think we need...love, justice, truth, victory (over what we perceive to be in our way).

The Jews were originally polytheists, so the Jewish religion served a wide variety of needs. At some point, followers of the war god Yaweh staged some kind of coup and usurped power from the followers of all the other Jewish gods, eventually declaring Yaweh to be the one and only god of the Jews. I believe this happened because the Jews were petrified of some impending war/invasion or another.

So I think you're a little off about the need served by the Jewish god.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why must the gospel accounts be dogmatically rejected as evidence?

There's more than one source for them.

How does that establish historicity?

It helps. It makes the Jesus miracle stories more credible than other miracle stories for which there is only one source. E.g., the miracle stories in the Book of Acts are less credible because they are dependent on this one source only.

More sources increases the credibility.

I asked 'how?' You just repeat the assertion a couple of times.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. You don't think in a trial that if 2 witnesses attest to the same event, rather than only one, it increases the likelihood of it being true? Or 3 or 4 witnesses is not preferable to only 1 or 2?

You don't think historians give higher credibility to a reported historical event if it is attested to by extra sources?

What about a legislator who receives complaints from his constituents about some problem -- if he gets only one complaint about a certain matter, he might disregard it, but if he gets more complaints, doesn't he start taking it seriously? Isn't this about the same as reacting to reports of something that happened, or what's going on? Isn't it reasonable to give more credibility to the reports if the number of them increases?

If one friend tells you you have bad breath, you might be concerned a little. But if 2 or 3 or 4 tell you the same thing, wouldn't you then be more concerned?

If you pass someone on the street and they giggle, you might ignore it. But if the next person you pass also giggles, and then another, and everyone you pass giggles after you, won't you start thinking something might be wrong, on your back, your clothes, or something about you that is seen from behind? Don't the extra signals from separate persons give extra evidence of something going on?

Isn't there a good reason why we assume that if there are additional signals or additional witnesses it means more than if there is only one?

If you're in an accident and there were witnesses, and you need to prove that it wasn't your fault, won't you try to get more than only one witness to support your version of what happened? If there are 10 witnesses and they all agree with your version, are you going to get a statement from only one and tell the others, "OK, don't need you, all I need is this one witness, so the judge will believe my version."?

I don't think so.

But it doesn't ensure historical accuracy.

I don't see how it even helps historical accuracy.

Just read a Snopes page. Stories are described by when they first showed up, and some noted changes (like changing president Carter to President Obama, or adding a pet cat, or changing the name of the dog). Humans make shit up.

So the judge doesn't want any extra witnesses to support your story? He'll just say, "Oh, these extra witnesses are just making shit up."?

Finding popular stories told and retold is not a quality that differentiates historical from mythical.

I think it does help differentiate them.

In Rome, the figure Catiline was a very bad person if you believe the popular story told by Cicero. Or you might doubt it as being biased. But when a similar version of the same story is retold by Sallust, then the story becomes more credible, doesn't it? Since this second version also describes Catiline as a bad person, doesn't that increase the possibility that Catiline really was a bad person?

And aren't there a million other examples of the same? Isn't the popular story made more credible by the fact that a separate source relates the same event, or makes the same judgment about it? And don't several more separate sources increase the credibility even more?

What does the term "a second opinion" mean? Isn't that similar? If the opinion or assessment comes from only one source, the chance of error is higher than if the same (or similar) opinion or assessment comes from two sources. The more sources it comes from continues to reduce the chance of error, or the degree of error.

Just about every culture on Earth has a tradition of vampires. Does that mean vampires are real?

What sources are you talking about?

Oral traditions. Almost every human language has a word for a creature either expressly a vampire, or something very similar, with similar tastes, needs and weaknesses.

Off hand I think the existence of these stories increases the possibility that the myths or legends or reports are true, i.e., that there could be some truth in them, and if there are such reports throughout all those cultures, this prevalence of such reports or myths or stories does increase the possibility that "vampires" do exist.

However, this leaves open what is meant by "vampire" and whether there are misinterpretations about these creatures, and psychological effects such creatures might have on people which would lead to confusion about them. If they don't exist at all, or there's absolutely no truth to it, then some explanation is needed as to why the stories exist so widely. If no explanation can be found, then it's better to assume some degree of truth to the stories.

The wide prevalence of such stories or reports definitely does increase the possiblity that some such creatures do exist. Even so, we still don't know.

You'd have to give more information about the particular events that were witnessed and written down by someone.

Now, wait a minute. You're quite content with the gospels being sourced by oral tradition over a long time, and finally written down in anonymous accounts, and calling that history, but to offer any comparative tradition, i need to nail down eyewitness stories, written down by 'someone?'

You know what my sources are, which are part of the public record. So, why can't you do just that much? You don't need to know the author's name. Just name the document in which the events are recorded, as I have identified my sources to you.

Where are there accounts of the doings of these "vampires"? You need to have an account which comes from someone reporting the events as really happening. It cannot be an account which says that it's just folklore and nothing more. It has to report the events as having really happened, not just as some local popular myths that we like to chuckle at.

If there is a clear pattern of such reports, even if there's only 2 or 3 sources, I would take it seriously and begin to consider if it might not be true that these "vampires" really have existed and do the things described.

If they are supposed to be popular in every culture going back for centuries, then there really should be more than only 2 or 3 sources that report them. The events in the gospel accounts cover a period of perhaps only one year, and a maximum of 3 years. So it's not to be expected that we'd have dozens of sources. But for something that has been going on for a thousand years or more in all regions of the world, there should be several sources reporting on the events.

Okay, so you're a fan of special case fallacies, i see.

I'm only asking you for the same kind of evidence I'm offering to you. I have named the sources, which are available to anyone. Events are described in those sources. So name a source, anonymous or whatever, which describes the events you're talking about.

I don't rule out that "vampires" exist, if there really are sources that report on them. If there is some evidence for it, then I would start to believe that some kind of creature resembling vampires might exist, or did exist at the times reported. Or, I might try to find some "natural" explanation, like someone pretending to be a ghost, or someone hallucinating or having a nightmare. It depends on what the sources claim happened.

But if you won't give me the sources which report the events, as I have given you for the events I believe happened, then I can't take your claim seriously that these "vampire" events really happened.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

How does that impact the estimate of their historicity?

If the time span is shorter, then there's less time for new fictional accounts to emerge which "mythologize" the actual event that happened.

Less time means less time. Got that. Can't even argue against it.

I don't see how it helps prove historicity, though. Humans don't need 20 years to make shit up. Just look at any election year.

The more time there is, the more opportunity there is for anything. The fact is that mythologizing is a long-term process. All the cases of mythologizing require several decades to build up, and usually centuries.

Name your mythical hero. All of them required that long time period in order for the legends to accumulate around the hero figure. Name one that did not require such a long time period.

The miracle stories about Gautama emerged over many centuries. The pattern is the same for most miracle heros. The longer time span beyond the period when the actual historical figure lived allows for the emergence of new stories, i.e., new stories to be invented.

But you cannot show that short time spans actually prevent enhancement, fictionalizing.

Yes I can show it. Name a mythic hero who was mythologized in a short time span. (Prior to the age of printing, which has speeded up the process of mythologizing in some ways.)

You can name a few figures who were famous people who got deified during their lifetime precisely because they were famous. The best example I know of would be the emperor Vespasian who is said to have performed some miracle healings.

Having fame and power would seem to be the best explanation for how these miracle stories emerged around him. However, I don't absolutely rule out the possibility that somehow he might have had some kind of limited healing power. Apparently these healings are reported in both Tacitus and Suetonius. These are still a bit later than the time the alleged miracle events actually happened, about 50 years or so after, so the lateness of the authors reduces the reliability of the accounts.

Nevertheless, since it's reported in 2 separate sources less than 100 years later, it might be given greater credence than most other miracle stories. But it's still improbable because of other possible explanations, one being that Vespasion was so famous and powerful that he could easily get people to believe something like this, or the popular imagination could create such legends focused on such an established powerful public figure, like today's tabloids can create a legend out of a current pubic figure.

But other than a famous public figure, there is no example of someone becoming mythologized in a short time, within his own life, or in less than 50 years. And why would this be? Probably because "short time spans actually prevent enhancement, fictionalizing" or mythologizing of a hero figure.

If a short time span does not prevent this, then why don't we have any example, just one example, of a mythic hero figure being mythologized within his own life or within a short time span? With the possible exception of someone famous and powerful like Vespasian, who stands out as an exceptionally unique figure in history. Where is there a normal person, someone of no power or fame, such as Jesus Christ in 30 AD, who became mythologized into a deity in less than 50 years?

We are entitled to assume that this IS impossible, or that it is prevented by the short time span, since that is always the pattern historically, with apparently NO exceptions. Or rather, with only ONE exception. If there is another such case, who would that be? If you can't name one, isn't it reasonable to assume that a long time span IS necessary in order for an ordinary person to become mythologized into a god? and thus a SHORT time span does prevent the mythologizing process?

You're unable to actually nail down the (if any) historical event, thus unable to show which parts were enhanced, or when.

The historical event is whatever it was that happened to this Christ person in 30 AD. Or whatever this person did. Whatever happened at that point in time, it became enhanced into a story of a miracle-worker with unique power. How did that enhancement take place?

We know this event took place. We know that he was prosecuted and executed by order of Pontius Pilate, because of the Tacitus quote. What happened that led up to this is the historical event in question that then became enhanced. So the "historical event" you're asking for is nailed down to a particular place and time in history, to those acts or events which led up to his trial and execution.

You can say we don't know exactly what these events were that led up to the trial and execution, though the gospel accounts give us a narrative to consider. But there must be some reason why he was arrested and tried and executed, even if you don't take those accounts as reliable. So whatever those reasons were, it must be about events that happened just prior, and from that is where the mythologizing process begins.

So the "historical event" IS nailed down.

This would not stand up to peer review.

So you think a "peer review" of this would show that there was no event that led up to this person's execution? The execution of Jesus is mentioned in Tacitus, so it is in the historical record. You're saying executions took place even though there was no one really executed? Or he was executed but nothing happened that led up to his execution? If all we know is that he was executed, isn't that an "historical event" which is the basic point from which the mythologizing begins? What are you saying would not "stand up to peer review"?

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true.

Wow, that's horseshit. Evidence for something being true is based on assuming that they're true?

No. Based on the fact that they are more difficult to explain without assuming they're true.

Someone tells you it's raining, and he's your only source, and you have no way to check. You assume it's raining,

Um, no. I don't 'assume' it's raining. I either trust his account or i do not.

Believing the report is true explains the report more easily than believing it is false.

(This assumes the one reporting to you has good information, has no motive to deceive you, and so on.)

Well, then, that's not "assuming," is it? That's knowing this individual and knowing his track record.

That doesn't apply to the gospels. We don't know who wrote them, or when, or for what purpose. That makes it almost criminal to just "assume" we can trust them.

I'm not arguing here that the accounts are trustworthy. There is some basis for doubting them, but not rejecting them altogether.

But my point here is to clarify how it is easier to explain the existence of these accounts, or how the report exists, if you assume that the accounts are true. It's not possible to know for certain, without any doubt, that they are true. However, if they are false, i.e., the events reported are fiction, it is more difficult to explain the existence of the accounts/reports than if they are true.

So, if the Jesus miracle acts are fiction, it is more difficult to explain the reports of those acts than if those miracle acts are factual. If the acts really happened, then it is easy to explain how we have these reports of them. But if they did not really happen, then it is very difficult to explain how these reports came about.

No one has given a good explanation how these reports, or Gospel accounts, could exist, given the circumstances about them, if the reported miracle acts did not really happen.

It is not true that such miracle reports exist easily even though such acts did not take place. Not if there are multiple sources reporting the events and these reports appear only a short time after the alleged events. And also if the mythic hero in the reports is someone who performed his public acts in such a short time period.

If it IS true that such miracle reports exist easily even though the reported acts did not take place, then why don't we have any other such cases of such a miracle-worker in the historical record? Name another example of such a case.

Which historian told you that one?

How do you think an historian chooses when to believe a report and when not to?

By knowing when the account was written, by whom, and for what reason.

We know when and for what reason, in the case of the gospel accounts, just as well as for most other historical records. And what does "by whom" mean? Just because you have a name, you think you "know" by whom it was written? How do you "know" by whom it was written any better just because you have a name? In many cases that name of the author is all there is. How does that tell you anymore about that author than if you have no name?

There are many authors about whom virtually nothing is known, other than the name and the particular writing attributed to him. And suppose you know the town where he was born, or some other minimum biographical information -- how does that really tell you anything important?

How do you claim you "know" that author just because you know his name and the town he was born in? or that he had a certain position or status? Obviously the document was written by someone. How does the name and 10 or 15 biographical words about that author really tell you anything important? How does that extra information tell you anything further about the author's reliability?

What's an example of a document that is rejected by historians because they can't identify the author of it?

Stories of battles told by the winners are taken with a grain of salt, for example.

No, they're believed generally but are just taken with more skepticism. Certainly the Gallic Wars of Caesar are taken mostly as accurate, despite the possibility of bias. One can take into account the possible bias and yet still grant overall credibility to the accounts.

And likewise the possibility of bias can be taken into account for any kind of writing that might have an agenda, while at the same time giving credibility to the account generally. And the bias of the gospel writers can also be taken into account. This does not mean those accounts have no credibility.

Stories told by eyewitnesses who throw in anachronisms are viewed very badly by historians.

But the whole story or the whole account is not excluded as fiction. The anachronism is disregarded as being an unreliable part of the account, but the account generally is still given credibility. Also, not all historians judge the accounts by the same standards, or make the same judgment as to the reliability or nonreliability of a particular account.

You can choose which historian you think judged the account correctly. We are not bound by some edict handed down by "the historians" as to what to believe and what not to believe in this or that account. Where they are unanimous, or virtually unanimous, it's best to defer to their judgment in most cases. But on the reliability of the gospel accounts, plus many other documents, there is little unanimity.

Your problem is, you don't have "more evidence" for the things you want to claim as historical truths.

There is vastly more evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus than for any other reputed miracle-workers or mythic hero figures. You have not shown that there is any comparable evidence for other reported cases of miracle events. You have not answered this question: Why is it so easy to explain miracle stories as a product of mythologizing in the case of Gautama and Apollonius and others, but so difficult to explain such accounts in the unique single case of Jesus?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

ALMOSt as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.

No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.

No, no. If you're going to offer 'easiest,' then you have to be consistent with 'easy.'

It's easiest of all to just deny all supernatural claims.

No, not if a "supernatural" claim is made which conforms to all the known facts and the denial of it conflicts with all the known facts -- in that case it is easier to believe that "supernatural" claim.

It is difficult to deny a claim if it fits in with all the agreed facts and if denying it then puts you in conflict with the facts.

There are no complicated steps, which is what makes that "easiest."

There is always the step of comparing the claim with the known facts. This is not an option, but is mandatory. Then, after this step, you decide if this claim more easily agrees with the facts or more easily conflicts with them.

And if it conflicts with all the facts, then it is not easy but difficult to harmonize it with the facts and judge it as true. So the rule is to believe that which more easily agrees with the known facts.

It's not terribly scientific.

Believing that which more easily agrees with the known facts is very scientific.

But then, neither is choosing "easy" history.

Choosing whatever history more easily agrees with the known facts is scientific.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are there no miracle acts attributed to John the Baptist? if such stories are so easily fabricated?

Christ is not necessarily = jesus.

Some of the Earliest Christians were sure that John the Baptist was the Christ, Jesus just one of his prophets.

In any case, we know for sure that no miracles were attributed to John the Baptist. No one believed he did such acts. And yet, if the two were of equal importance, and if the miracle acts attributed to Jesus did not really happen, then we have to ask: Why were no miracle acts attributed to John the Baptist?

The best answer is: Because he didn't do any such acts. Whereas Jesus did.

No? Then what would be a better answer?

 

[DBT]

It's difficult enough to determine the truth of events that happened two years ago, yet alone two thousand. Considering the nature of the material, religious faith and supernatural claims, the Bible should not be taken literally, just as world wide native creation myths are not taken literally, but still recognized for their historic and cultural value.

 

[Juma]

In any case, we know for sure that no miracles were attributed to John the Baptist.

Do we? How could we know that? After all cleansing of the scriptures by the church?

 

[Atheos]

Some of the Earliest Christians were sure that John the Baptist was the Christ, Jesus just one of his prophets.

In any case, we know for sure that no miracles were attributed to John the Baptist. No one believed he did such acts. And yet, if the two were of equal importance, and if the miracle acts attributed to Jesus did not really happen, then we have to ask: Why were no miracle acts attributed to John the Baptist?

The best answer is: Because he didn't do any such acts. Whereas Jesus did.

No? Then what would be a better answer?

So since the Roman emporer Vespatian was reported to do miracles and Claudius (who preceded him) performed no miracles the only reasonable explanation is that Vespatian did, in fact perform miracles. Gotcha. Do you even listen to yourself?

You've been presented with better answers numerous times now in this thread. Here is a link to one in which I've thoroughly treated every argument you've presented along with all available evidence in what I believe is a rational and sensible manner. Ignoring the magnitude of counter-evidence and the strength of the opposing arguments isn't going to make them go away.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's more than one source for them.

How does that establish historicity?

It helps. It makes the Jesus miracle stories more credible than other miracle stories for which there is only one source. E.g., the miracle stories in the Book of Acts are less credible because they are dependent on this one source only.

More sources increases the credibility.

I asked 'how?' You just repeat the assertion a couple of times.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. You don't think in a trial that if 2 witnesses attest to the same event, rather than only one, it increases the likelihood of it being true? Or 3 or 4 witnesses is not preferable to only 1 or 2?

No, not of the motives of the witnesses are suspect. Not if they weren't eyewitnesses, but came along 100 days after the event and weren't witnesses, but merely reported what everyone on the street was saying.
The number of 'sources' alone does not establish historicity.

You don't think historians give higher credibility to a reported historical event if it is attested to by extra sources?

I've already told you what historians look for to establish credibility. It doesn't involve counting on their fingers.

Who, when and what was their point in writing down the event. Eyewitnesses are better than people who record rumor. Objective is better than those with an agenda. Etc.

Isn't there a good reason why we assume that if there are additional signals or additional witnesses it means more than if there is only one?

There's a good reason we dont' just rely on the Bible to establish if The Bible is historical.

If you're in an accident and there were witnesses, and you need to prove that it wasn't your fault, won't you try to get more than only one witness to support your version of what happened?

I would try to get an actual eyewitness. Not get a large number of people who weren't there to vouch for me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But it doesn't ensure historical accuracy.

I don't see how it even helps historical accuracy.

Just read a Snopes page. Stories are described by when they first showed up, and some noted changes (like changing president Carter to President Obama, or adding a pet cat, or changing the name of the dog). Humans make shit up.

So the judge doesn't want any extra witnesses to support your story? He'll just say, "Oh, these extra witnesses are just making shit up."?

Again, and again, and again, Lumpy.
The NUMBER Of people repeating a story is not the same as overwhelming evidence.
THE NUMBER of people agreeing to a story is not the same as having eyewitnesses.

You have not established that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts, so the number of non-witness accounts you provide is fucking meaningless.

Finding popular stories told and retold is not a quality that differentiates historical from mythical.

I think it does help differentiate them.

Only for the stories you want to be true. I notice you're not trying to say that having George Washington's Cherry Tree story in many different books makes it credible.

And aren't there a million other examples of the same? Isn't the popular story made more credible by the fact that a separate source relates the same event, or makes the same judgment about it? And don't several more separate sources increase the credibility even more?

You're stretching the use of 'separate source' into illegibility.

What does the term "a second opinion" mean? Isn't that similar?

No, it's not similar. That's asking an expert to question the evidence. YOu're opposed to an actual historian's evaluation of the gospels, if it doesn't collaborate your desires. That's the opposite of a 2nd opinion.

Just about every culture on Earth has a tradition of vampires. Does that mean vampires are real?

What sources are you talking about?

Oral traditions. Almost every human language has a word for a creature either expressly a vampire, or something very similar, with similar tastes, needs and weaknesses.

Off hand I think the existence of these stories increases the possibility that the myths or legends or reports are true, i.e., that there could be some truth in them, and if there are such reports throughout all those cultures, this prevalence of such reports or myths or stories does increase the possibility that "vampires" do exist.

However, this leaves open what is meant by "vampire" and whether there are misinterpretations about these creatures, and psychological effects such creatures might have on people which would lead to confusion about them. If they don't exist at all, or there's absolutely no truth to it, then some explanation is needed as to why the stories exist so widely. If no explanation can be found, then it's better to assume some degree of truth to the stories.

So, the mere number of reports of vampires is not enough information for you to conclude whether or not they actually exist. Good, that's very good, Lumpy.
Unfortunately, it's counter to your stance on the gospels.

Whoopsy.

You know what my sources are,

No, that's just it, we do NOT know what your sources are.
The gospel authors are anonymous, just tradition attributes them to people.

It cannot be an account which says that it's just folklore and nothing more.

Why not? That's what you're saying the gospels were. Oral accounts handed down until they were written down.

Once again, you special case the superstition you enjoy.

Okay, so you're a fan of special case fallacies, i see.

I'm only asking you for the same kind of evidence I'm offering to you.

No, you're not. YOu pretend that these are separate accounts and treat them as eyewitnesses, but they're nothign of the source.

I have named the sources,

Only the traditional names.
YOu can't pin down when they were written, where or by whom.

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

How does that impact the estimate of their historicity?

Name your mythical hero. All of them required that long time period in order for the legends to accumulate around the hero figure. Name one that did not require such a long time period.

Bald assertion. They may have taken a long time for legends to accumulate, but that does not mean that long periods of time were required for them to fabricate stories.
You would have to show that no one COULD fabricate a story in a short time.
And you can't since there is ample proof that people make shit up all the time. Especially in election years.

Yes I can show it. Name a mythic hero who was mythologized in a short time span. (Prior to the age of printing, which has speeded up the process of mythologizing in some ways.)

George Washington's Cherry Tree was a myth. The myth was made up shortly after his death. The 'age of printing' is meaningless, since print is not required to fabricate a myth. It just needs someone to make shit up.
Your proof is poofed.

But other than a famous public figure, there is no example of someone becoming mythologized in a short time, within his own life, or in less than 50 years.

I know that you're throwing bullshit around, because you've made it clear that you don't know dick about other religions. You barely have a grasp on your own.
You're not able to establish this fact other than insisting

This would not stand up to peer review.

So you think a "peer review" of this would show that there was no event that led up to this person's execution?

No, i'm saying at best, a 'peer review' of your argument would ask where the hell is your bibliography?
THey's ask you to support your wild logical leaps and how you present 'evidence' by just asking questions of people who question your lack of evidence.
They'd point out holes in your claims and conclusions and say
'Even if this is all completely true, you've failed to actually establish that you have evidence to support it.' And send you back to you classroom to learn the basics.

 

[funinspace]

If being close to events made things truer, then Islam should be very seriously considered, as the oldest extant copy comes in just 40 years after Muhammad’s death.

What events of Muhammad's time reported in those documents should we question? Do they make claims that are not credible? We're talking about reported events that someone rejects as not being factual. Like the miracles of Jesus in the gospel accounts.

We are quite confident that Joseph Smith penned the Book of Mormon, so here is another great contender based upon this notion of credibility of document proximity.

Do you mean that the events reported in the Book of Mormon are more believable than those reported in the Gospel accounts? I don't think those reported events were near to the time of Joseph Smith or that he had any sources about those events. I'm not sure what analogy you're drawing between the Book of Mormon and its content and the Gospel accounts and their content.

The comparison I'm pointing out is to other examples of reported miracle events. In all the other cases, like Gautama and Apollonius and Simon Magus, the time gap between the events in question and the written record of them is large, even centuries.
<snip>

Obliviously, as has already been happening, we could go on until the cows come home. You find the generation of miracle stories within 3 decades compelling and an anomaly, whereas most others here do not. The miracle stories come with so much garnish (BS) that your main course notion is hardly noticeable. I find it far more likely that we have a 2 stage initiation of this mythos via 2 charismatic l leaders, something along the lines of Smith-Young. If find it telling that this purported miracle worker seemed to have left so little impact in Judea, even though various tales have thousands of witnesses. Jesus feed 5,000 men (many assume the total would be much higher with women and children). He purportedly had a triumphant entry into Jerusalem with the multitude throwing down cloaks and palms down before him. So over this 1-3 years, Jesus left so little of a personal local impact that the growth in this new cult came in what is now modern day Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Syria, Caesarea and Rome.

In post 211 you wrongly introduce Tacitus and Suetonius as witnesses to Jesus healing, and Tacitus witness his prosecution and his execution. Tacitus wasn’t born until 56AD, 2 decades after the events. His citation is from 116AD. Suetonius wasn’t born until 69AD, over 3 decades after the events. These 2 men are witnesses to the existence of Christians and Christian stories, not Jesus. This does help the notion that something akin to the modern day Gospels were in circulation at the start of the 2nd century.

And the growth rate is no more impressive than those funny Mormons:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95

The math is pretty simple. Let’s do it ourselves. We need two numbers: a early starting count of Christians and a count around 300 C.E. Here’s Rodney Stark writing about the starting number:

For a starting number, Acts 1:14-15 suggests that several months after the Crucifixion there were 120 Christians. Later, in Acts 4:4, a total of 5,000 believers is claimed. And, according to Acts 21:20, by the sixth decade of the first century there were “many thousands of Jews” in Jerusalem who now believed. These are not statistics. Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time… As Hans Conzelmann noted, these numbers are only “meant to render impressive the marvel that here the Lord himself is at work” [1973:63]. Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, “one must always remember that figures in antiquity… were part of rhetorical exercises”.
<snip>
So let’s say there were only 1,000 Christians by the year 40, a full decade after Jesus’ death.

As for the ending number, at 300 C.E., historians have made many estimates, usually around 5-8 million.4

So, Christianity may have grown from about 1,000 believers in 40 C.E. to about 5-8 million in 300 C.E. – just 260 years. That would require a growth rate of 40% per decade…
<snip>
That really is tremendous growth. Now we can ask, does this kind of growth require mass conversions?

As it turns out, this matches almost exactly the growth rate of the Mormon church over the past century. Mormonism has grown at 43% per decade, and without mass conversions.5

Exponential growth explains the explosion of Christianity perfectly. In fact, it also explains why Christianity seemed insignificant until about 300, when it suddenly became a huge force in the Roman Empire.6 The growth rate remained the same, but in terms of absolute numbers, Christianity would indeed explode around that time – from 6 million to 33 million adherents – if it tracked with the growth rate of Mormonism.

So, the early growth of the Christian church is impressive, but no more impressive than the growth of Mormonism.

We know the authors of the Quran and the Book of Mormon (BM). Lacking 29 Jesus style miracles, really isn’t any more a show stopper than say lacking authorship, or say lacking it being written down until up to half century later. And the BM silly magical history in the Americas, is no sillier than the Noah, Moses, Joshua, tales, nor any less historical.

I’m not sure why you went all binary on eye-witness testimony. Did either of my links say just throw it all out? Clue: they didn’t. The point of both links was that unless one treats eye-witnesses with care, it is quite susceptible to being led towards false information. Throw in a charismatic leader, and many humans are quite susceptible to thinking crazy shit they wouldn’t have otherwise. You are fixated on “flawed” witness testimony, thereby expecting lots of random and very different Jesus stories. That is hardly the only way eye-witness testimony changes. Witnesses are malleable. It is easy enough to see cases, where people are led towards a common fantasy.

One specific snippet:

Do you mean that the events reported in the Book of Mormon are more believable than those reported in the Gospel accounts? I don't think those reported events were near to the time of Joseph Smith or that he had any sources about those events. I'm not sure what analogy you're drawing between the Book of Mormon and its content and the Gospel accounts and their content.

If you think the Joseph Smith (JS) miracles didn’t happen in his time, or weren’t reported in his time, you have obviously been ignoring Atheos’ posts. JS created his BM 1828-30. The witnessed healing miracles happened all thru the 1830’s, with several separate and known sources. Of course I’m not arguing that the BM is more believable. That is like asking if I find the Character of Darth Vader more believable than the Borg. The point that the LDS provides, including set in a relatively modern era, is the gullibility of people to buy into all sorts of stupid shit.

Another snippet:

Who knows why this cult succeeded where others did not?

One answer is that the central figure, Jesus Christ, actually did perform the particular acts. This explains the anomaly. Of course you can just say we don't know the answer. But if one answer explains it, and there is no other good answer, then you have to seriously consider that one answer, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

Your answer is an explanation, but certainly not the only possible explanation. The Muslim sect is expected to overtake the broad Christian umbrella sect with 40-50 years in popularity. From the LDS humble beginnings less than 200 years ago, has been growing just as fast as the Christians did 2 millennia ago. So having purported lots of witnesses to many parlor tricks, doesn’t seem to be the only key to success. Both of these other religions did it maybe with less purported fan fair, but they do it also with a better historical lineage to their own claimed revelations.

Why have the Mormons done quite well, and the Christian Scientists have floundered? Why has the The Bahá'í Faith managed to gain around 5 million followers worldwide in 200 years, roughly 10 times the Christian Scientists?

I'm not sure what the reasons are for this. But are you saying that these things happen without any reason? I assume one could find reasons to explain the success of one movement vs. another. You can't say it just happens without any reason or cause.

In the case of the new Jesus cult, the reason is that the miracle events described must have really happened, and the word spread and large numbers believed.

Of course there are reasons why some cults expand rapidly, others barely grow, and some even wither and die. The quality of the charismatic leader, the packaging of the mythos/theology, the quality of the early group of supporters, the events in the world around them, et.al. will influence the growth of a new/revised mythos/theology. And as I have already pointed out, the Jesus-cult really hasn’t outperformed the Smith-cult in growth numbers.


The point of mentioning Buddhist Maudgalyāyana miracles, had nothing to do with justifying them or showing they were recorded near his purported lifetime. The challenge was to show miracle worker stories existed prior to Jesus’ time. The point is that the Jesus-as-god makers would have reasons to impart new god with powers that others already advertised, much like the flimsy miracle birth narrative. You harp on how short time it was to allow for false miracles to emerge, but then all the whole birth narrative to crash down as a false narrative, constructed in that same short time frame.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true.

Wow, that's horseshit. Evidence for something being true is based on assuming that they're true?

No. Based on the fact that they are more difficult to explain without assuming they're true.

Someone tells you it's raining, and he's your only source, and you have no way to check. You assume it's raining,

Um, no. I don't 'assume' it's raining. I either trust his account or i do not.

Believing the report is true explains the report more easily than believing it is false.

(This assumes the one reporting to you has good information, has no motive to deceive you, and so on.)

Well, then, that's not "assuming," is it? That's knowing this individual and knowing his track record.

That doesn't apply to the gospels. We don't know who wrote them, or when, or for what purpose. That makes it almost criminal to just "assume" we can trust them.

I'm not arguing here that the accounts are trustworthy. There is some basis for doubting them, but not rejecting them altogether.

But my point here is to clarify how it is easier to explain the existence of these accounts, or how the report exists, if you assume that the accounts are true.

But it's NOT actually easier. It may be more comfortable for you to do so, but that's not the easiest explanation.

We have accounts of people telling lies, all around us.
We don't have objective accounts of dependable miracles. Therefore the easiest explanation would be one that matches our experiences with humans today. Made up shit.

It's not possible to know for certain, without any doubt, that they are true. However, if they are false, i.e., the events reported are fiction, it is more difficult to explain the existence of the accounts/reports than if they are true.

No, it really isn't.
Any more than it's difficult to explain the accounts of Odin, Thor, Ra, Amateratsu, Mithras, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, or the time my Grandma shot a bear in the outhouse.

So, if the Jesus miracle acts are fiction, it is more difficult to explain the reports of those acts than if those miracle acts are factual.

Repeating it doesn't make it remotely true.

If the acts really happened, then it is easy to explain how we have these reports of them. But if they did not really happen, then it is very difficult to explain how these reports came about.

Repeating the bare assertion doesn't make it true.