120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Wouldn't hurt for him to familiarize himself with it before repeating this falsehood again.

But it would cripple his favorite argument! He doesn't DARE up his knowledge in that direction.

 

[Atheos]

Wouldn't hurt for him to familiarize himself with it before repeating this falsehood again.

But it would cripple his favorite argument! He doesn't DARE up his knowledge in that direction.

Well since archaeology doesn't offer any support for his pet fantasy I can't say I blame him for ignoring its existence.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

No, just consider what choice you'd make if you had to give priority to one kind vs. another:

E.g., suppose a human sprays ants and kills them. If you could stop this human from killing those ants, would you stop him?

I might. Say, for example, I'm an entomologist and the ants he's spraying are a rare species, then sure, I'd stop him. Or maybe the ants are in a location where they're doing no damage and aren't bothering anybody, and the sprayer is doing it just for the fun of it, I might stop him then, too.

But suppose a human is attacked by ants who will kill him, but you could rescue that human -- Would you rescue him?

Probably. You know why? Because I'm a human, too. Would a lion rescue him? A herd of buffalo? Apack of wild dogs? No. They wouldn't care one way or the other.

Everyone would choose to rescue the human but not stop the human from killing the ants. So everyone recognizes the superiority of the human over the ants.

No. It's got nothing to do with "superiority". It's because we're the same species as the human, but not the same as the ants.

If the human is not superior, then you have to allow the ants to kill the human just as much as you'd allow the human to kill the ants.

Only because we empathise with our own species more than with the ants, not because of any "superiority" And, to be quite honest, there a re some humans I'd happily watch being devoured by ants.

No? But then what is the explanation for giving the human this priority and allowing him to kill the ants? Why the double standard?

Kinship. The same reason why the ants in your first example might attack the human spraying their fellow ants.

If there's no reason for it, but it's just a subjective choice, then that means you would not object to someone else doing the opposite, i.e., saving the ants from being killed by the human, but allowing the ants to kill the human.

It is a subjective choice, subject to the fact that we're both human.

But you would object, wouldn't you?

If you would do anything to pressure others into making the same choice you make, i.e., to save the human from being attacked by ants but not save the ants from being killed by the human, then this is not a subjective choice by you, but an objective choice, based on the facts of the universe, which say that the humans are superior and take priority over the ants.

No, it's a subjective choice, based on our shared humanity. This means that humans take priority over the ants for other humans. The universe, as can be seen by the fact that it's not unkown for humans and other animals to be killed with impunity by ants or other creatures, does not even begin to give a shit.

 

[Atheos]

C_Mucius_Scaevola makes a great point. If Lumpenproletariat's arguments were true and there was some "objective universal truth" that the life of a human being is more important than the life of other species on this planet one would expect inferior species to avoid harming or killing humans. Because the truth was objective and universal.

But a group of wasps will happily attack and possibly kill a human disturbing their nest. The only conclusion to be reached is that the wasps value the safety and well-being of members of their species with greater importance than they value human beings. Demonstrating that it's a matter of perspective, not an objective fact.

And as C_Mucius_Scaevola points out, the reason this happens is the same in both cases. Humans tend to protect other humans first, wasps tend to protect other wasps first.

 

[skepticalbip]

You seem to be on replay again. You must really like this one even though you have offered the same nonsense several times in this thread and several examples have been given to show it is balderdash. For just one repeat, Joseph Smith was also an instant miracle hero and he now has a much larger world wide following (estimated at 14.8 million Mormons in 2012) than the Jesus cult did this long after his "miracles".

You're proving my point again. J. S. and all his followers were Christ believers.

You cannot name any comparable miracle hero example except those who required the modern mass publishing industry. There is no example from before 1500.
.

Smith was just one of many "miracle" workers. If you want an ancient one that has nothing to do with Jesus then I'll just have to repeat yet another mentioned the last couple times you brought up this nonsense. Try Gautama Buddha.

 

[skepticalbip]

It occurs to me that Lumpenproletariat's most recent arguments about greater beings suffer from the fact that the exact same arguments could be used 150 years ago to justify mistreatment of black people.

Not only could be, that argument was used to justify slavery.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think its fair to assume 2.2 billion Christians all have a reason to think Christianty is true?

I think its fair to assume 1.6 billion Muslims all have a reason to think Islam is true?

Yep.
And I forgot to mention Jewish people.
Let's just call it an even 4 billion roughly.

 

[abaddon]

I think its fair to assume 2.2 billion Christians all have a reason to think Christianty is true?

Hehe, theists have "a reason" to believe.

So has any believer, no matter what he believes. The question is if it's a good or lame reason.

Clearly those 120 'reasons' are spread way too thinly to make a dent in Christianity. You're gonna have to come up with a lot more new reasons.

Spread too thinly? You mean there ought to be a few incisive ones, or even just "a reason"? If so then wouldn't more reasons spread things more thinly, if just having "a reason" keeps it all nicely condensed?

Also - saying I don't believe you isn't really a "reason" not to believe. It's merely a personal opinion.

That's why no one says just "I don't believe you" without having reasons.

No it's not opinion if it's fact-based, which means evidenced by the visible world, not by someone's testimony.

It's just saying "I don't believe you" 120 times in a row.

If you can find anywhere an "I don't believe you" assertion that isn't justified with at least a few good reasons, then challenge it and be forthright and non-evasive in your own reaction (if you can).

 

[Lion IRC]

I deleted the comicbook Superman because I assume you don't claim he exists.

I don't claim whatever god you happen to believe in exists either, so I felt like it was a worthy example.

Yes a good example except we are talking about a category called "beings" not non-beings.
If you don't think God or Superman exist then why bother including them for consideration in the MGB discussion?

...There is a possible world in which Superman exists. And if Superman exists in any possible world then he exists. Therefore he has to be included in the same choice as the other two for the same reasons your imaginary friend has to.

IF God possibly exists then He does have to be considered as a possible contender for MGB.
That's the whole point!

Who is the maximally greatest astro-physicist? If Stephen Hawking doesn't exist, then Victor Stenger or Neil Degrasse Tyson or someone else moves up into first place.

Who is the maximally fastest runner on the planet? Let's say it is Usain Bolt. But IF there is a possible world somewhere in the Universe/Multiverse/Megaverse/Omniverse where Usain Bolt's slightly faster rival lives, then we would have to take that into account. But either way, there exists somewhere the maximally fastest runner - by ontological necessity. (The ontology is that we can reasonably hold to the idea there is such a thing as "running" and that there is such a categorisation as fast, faster, fastest.)

The fact that you cannot answer the question between the other two at this moment demonstrates how vacuous the MGB argument is.

LOL - you post a picture of Stephen Hawking and Usain Bolt and ask which is the greatest. But that's a fallacy of false dilemma because I could simply answer they both are equally greatest. And then your immediate (natural) response would of course be...the greatest what?
And you would be expecting me to justify my belief.

But isn't that disingenuous to expect me to answer such a false dillema when you yourself won't stipulate whether you mean greatest physicist or greatest runner. And if perchance Usain Bolt was a Nobel prize winning physicist who could also run faster than anyone else, would that tip the scales in his favor? And if Usain Bolt was the fastest physicist on the planet and solved the Unified Theory of Everything and cured cancer and lived a perfectly moral life would that make him just a little bit higher than Stephen Hawking?

And what if Usain Bolt died and went to heaven and met his Maker - God. Who would be the greater out of the two? Usain Bolt? Or the One who created Usain Bolt?

 

[Lion IRC]

I think its fair to assume 1.6 billion Muslims all have a reason to think Islam is true?

Funinspace, you're being ridiculous. Appealing to popularity is a valid way to prove something is true. Get with the program.

Pretty ironic considering kyroots very first 'reason'
(1) Jesus Seminar - there's lots of us and since lots of us don't believe Jesus walked on water, neither should you.

 

[Lion IRC]

What is kyroots 2nd "reason"?
(2) The Christian world versus the real world.

Here we have another blatant example of sheer disbelief. Argument from incredulity.
...I don't believe what you believe and I can't believe that you actually believe it because it's just so unbelievable

Where is kyroot's or Loftus' or Hitchens' coercive logic and incontrovertible evidence against the Star of Bethlehem or the existence of demons? Instead theirs is a classic fallacy that the older a belief is, the more skeptical we ought to be. (Stupid, untrustworthy primitive people.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes a good example except we are talking about a category called "beings" not non-beings.

Well, that's what you're trying to establish, nu? That your favorite skybeast is an existing being? You don't get to call foul if we don't share your starting premise when you haven't made the case for your conclusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Funinspace, you're being ridiculous. Appealing to popularity is a valid way to prove something is true. Get with the program.

Pretty ironic considering kyroots very first 'reason'

Um... has anyone currently discussing this issue with you endorsed kyroot's entire list of reasons?
I have several problems with his listings, though he has never responded to my criticisms.

But even if we had, or Atheos has, does that make your argument from popularity any less of a logical fallacy?

- - - Updated - - -

What is kyroots 2nd "reason"?
(2) The Christian world versus the real world.

Here we have another blatant example of sheer disbelief. Argument from incredulity.

No. How about the Earth is always described in The Books as a Flat Earth.
The real world doesn't accept this, and because of evidence, not 'sheer disbelief.'

 

[Lion IRC]

No Keith&Co.
You still don't get it.
I don't need to prove God exists to show that 'a' maximally great being exists.
Of course I happen to think that God IS that being. But even if I took away 95% of God's greatness (omnipotence) and changed His name to Bill or Ted, and gave Him a job as a Walmart assistant, He still might be the greatest on account of the fact that there was no other greater being than Him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No Keith&Co.
You still don't get it.
I don't need to prove God exists to show that 'a' maximally great being exists.

Well, you can't seem to support your argument that "A" maximally great being must exist. You can show that in several categories, something must be the greatest being 'in that category' but you haven't given anyone a reason to think that there MUST be one being that is greatest in more than one category. So, you keep playing with words and pretending you've made a point, while ducking all criticisms.

Good apologist, though.

 

[Lion IRC]

Pretty ironic considering kyroots very first 'reason'

Um... has anyone currently discussing this issue with you endorsed kyroot's entire list of reasons?

Don't know. Don't care.
I'm talking about the problem that I have with brute skepticism camouphlaged as 'reason'.
Saying "I don't believe you" 120 times is not the same as giving 120 individual reasons.

...I have several problems with his listings, though he has never responded to my criticisms.

Yeah. Internet discussion boards suck.
Maybe kyroots is such a microcelebrity that we're not worth the effort.

...But even if we had, or Atheos has, does that make your argument from popularity any less of a logical fallacy?

Well in my own defence, I was simply pointing out that Christians have their own list of 'reasons'.
And it is a numbers game to the extent that if I have 121 reasons to think God exists and you only have 120 to think the opposite, then (all things being equal) the balance of persuasive reasoning falls slightly in my favor - assuming one is open minded and theres no slam dunk defeater on either side.

What is kyroots 2nd "reason"?
(2) The Christian world versus the real world.

Here we have another blatant example of sheer disbelief. Argument from incredulity.

No. How about the Earth is always described in The Books as a Flat Earth.

The bible describes the Earth as a sphere in my opinion.
But I realise there are literalists who - if you show them a map of the world - will point to its four corners and say, look, the Earth has corners. And theres a morning show in TV in Australia called "Sunrise" which must have been named by a silly bible type person who thinks the Sun actually rises.
But there's nowhere in the bible that says the surface of the Earth is a single flat two-dimensional plane as opposed to some other falsely claimed shape like an Orb.
In point of fact bible writers in the book of Job and Isaiah affirm the spherical shape and - like their ancient contemporaries - knew that the Earth had a circumference. They understood that 'rivers run to the sea' in a hydraulogical cycle - not pouring off the edge of a cliff draining the ocean dry.

 

[Atheos]

No Keith&Co.
You still don't get it.
I don't need to prove God exists to show that 'a' maximally great being exists.
Of course I happen to think that God IS that being. But even if I took away 95% of God's greatness (omnipotence) and changed His name to Bill or Ted, and gave Him a job as a Walmart assistant, He still might be the greatest on account of the fact that there was no other greater being than Him.

It would seem that Lion IRC is committing to the premise that an omnipotent being exists and that this omnipotence is the qualifier by which "greatness" is measured.

That's progress at least. We've been asking him or anyone involved in the pro-MGB side of this discussion to define"greatness" for several weeks now.

Unfortunately there is no evidence suggesting that such a being exists. There are lots of god-myths, thousands upon thousands. But no actual gods.

I have an index card sitting on the desk in front of me. It's been sitting face down for about 6 years now. I can easily reach over and flip it face up to reveal a sequence of letters and digits I wrote on it several years ago. I'll gladly rescind my skepticism the moment this omnipotent being flips the card over and demonstrates what I would call a minimum of potency. Or perhaps you could pray to it that it reveal to you the sequence written thereon. I may be a skeptic but I'm an honest one. I hereby affirm that I will play fair. Get this god to quit acting the same way it would if it didn't exist and there will be reason to think it exists. Post the sequence for the sake of all us infidels.

This is the limit of your god's power. It cannot so much as move a piece of paper no matter how much faith you put into your prayer. It will always behave exactly like it would if it didn't exist. Which it doesn't.

 

[Lion IRC]

No Keith&Co.
You still don't get it.
I don't need to prove God exists to show that 'a' maximally great being exists.

Well, you can't seem to support your argument that "A" maximally great being must exist. You can show that in several categories, something must be the greatest being 'in that category' but you haven't given anyone a reason to think that there MUST be one being that is greatest in more than one category. So, you keep playing with words and pretending you've made a point, while ducking all criticisms.

Good apologist, though.

Why do you think we have to only take one category at a time?

I gave you the example of Usain Bolt versus Stephen Hawking.
If they were both equally great physicists and only one of them held the world record for land speed, then Usain Bolt beats Stephen Hawking.

If they BOTH had the same number of Nobel Prizes and Olympic Gold Medals and only one of them could truthfully claim moral perfection then THAT would be the differential.

You can keep on adding superlatives in competition with each other, singing ..anything Hawking can do Bolt can do better, but eventually you 'max out' your greatness of being.

And all the while, you must stick with the necessity of existence, because you can't "be" the MGB unless you actually "be".
And you must admit the notion that if God is omnipotent, then nothing trumps God. (Apart from another omnipotent being - who has always existed and always will.)

 

[bigfield]

Well, you can't seem to support your argument that "A" maximally great being must exist. You can show that in several categories, something must be the greatest being 'in that category' but you haven't given anyone a reason to think that there MUST be one being that is greatest in more than one category. So, you keep playing with words and pretending you've made a point, while ducking all criticisms.

Good apologist, though.

Why do you think we have to only take one category at a time?

I gave you the example of Usain Bolt versus Stephen Hawking.
If they were both equally great physicists and only one of them held the world record for land speed, then Usain Bolt beats Stephen Hawking.

If they BOTH had the same number of Nobel Prizes and Olympic Gold Medals and only one of them could truthfully claim moral perfection then THAT would be the differential.

You can keep on adding superlatives in competition with each other, singing ..anything Hawking can do Bolt can do better, but eventually you 'max out' your greatness of being.

And all the while, you must stick with the necessity of existence, because you can't "be" the MGB unless you actually "be".
And you must admit the notion that if God is omnipotent, then nothing trumps God. (Apart from another omnipotent being - who has always existed and always will.)

God hasn't won any Nobel Prizes or Gold Medals.

 

[Lion IRC]

kyroots "reason" number 3. Hell

"Any person possessing critical thinking skills can understand that a magnificently powerful god would [not need/want hell]

This is argument from incredulity writ large. ...I can't understand why God would allow hell therefore that disproves (my version of) Christianity.
Plus kyroot is open to the accusation of anthropomorphising God into a Being who must act as we would have Him act or else He isn't real.

There is absolutely NO attempt made here to actually engage with the widely-available arguments made by Christian theology in defence of the doctrine of hell. All kyroot does is assert that hell isn't agreeable to kyroot and toss in a bit of argumentum ad Hitlerum. Seriously? Godwin's Law and we're only up to reason #3?

How is hell an argument against God? Wouldnt we have a greater complaint against a law-giver who failed to enforce the law?