• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

Why Won't God Heal Amputees? That's an important one for believers in miraculous cures, because for us to regrow limbs is rather obviously contrary to known laws of nature. However, it would not be a problem for an allegedly omnipotent being.
 
Through our own current observations of the world around us, we humans tend to learn about what is and is not possible, or at least what is likely or unlikely to be the case. For instance, if you come across a note that describes an elephant flying around in the air, your initial assumption should be that the note is NOT describing accurately what actually happened. Maybe it was not intended to be taken literally in the first place but instead as a fictional story, or maybe it was intended literally and the person believes it really happened. Either way, the rest of us who did not witness such a thing should still presume that such a thing did not really happen. We have plenty of experience ourselves with elephants, and in all that of experience they have never been observed to be flying around. If somebody says otherwise, the burden of proof is on them. Mundane claims require mundane evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The same is true for miracle stories. For the various supernatural and miracle events described throughout the Bible (and other religious books), we should require better evidence than a mere writing description of them. We do not know who exactly the author was in many cases, what their own various motives were for writing the stories (they do not come across as "reports" of events though, like a news report. Instead, they come across as fictional and mythical and exaggerated accounts, like various other stories in human history). People are just misreading and misunderstanding them if they think they are accurate and unbiased descriptions of events.

If I am wrong there, and they were written to be factually accurate and literal descriptions of events, then we should still require better evidence than mere words in a book that they describe events that really did happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Brian
 
But your doctrine claims to prove certain alleged events could not have happened regardless how much evidence reports that they did happen.
No, Lumpy. This isn't a 'doctrine' it's how we understand the world to work. And it does not prove events didn't happen. It's the basis for rejecting unsupported claims because they run counter to how we understand the world to work.
As for 'how much evidence,' you're stuck with the fact that extraordinary events that violate the rules of the world as we understand them need OUTSTANDING evidence in order to be taken seriously.

But rather than irrefutable evidence, you're offering refutable evidence, presupposition, and a serious (and apparently willful) misunderstanding of how history and historians work.
And finger-pointing, blaming the critics for your failures.... Very Christain of you.
^Yup! Ah, the Lumpy bob-n-weave dance again. You have been corrected on this silliness a multitude of times, yet here you are again regurgitating the same BS. Again, I don't need the Jesus miracles via the stories from the synoptic gospels to be "proven". I'd like reasons that they are at least plausible if not probable. Instead, if one steps back and looks at the larger picture of the formation of Christianity out of the history of Judaism one runs into so many problems, it is literally hard to list them all. I'll just re-post my comments from almost a year ago:

Your MHORC seems to include a magical decade limit conveniently right below the timespan that most scholars put down for the development of a large portion your particular holy texts. However, there is nothing to support your time limit. In fact it has been shown over and over that mythos can develop within very short periods of time. Also, there is no reason to limit such examples to miracle max workers, that is just your special pleading trying to pigeon hole your faith as the only valid one (aka random puzzle piece).

Your MHORC seems to include your god doing parlor tricks as a pre-requisite for being a valid theology (aka random puzzle piece). Why?

Your MHORC seems to require the miracles to be recorded by someone(s) not currently part of the cult (aka random puzzle piece; which you conveniently leave out the fact that you CLEARLY have no evidence to support that your cult’s parlor tricks weren’t recorded by participating cultists). You simply want them to be that way, so therefore it must be true. It could be true, but that is very different than solid evidence that it is true. Though it is obvious that this is the source for the LDS miracles, ergo your special pleading argument...

Your requirements are not only random, but you also ignore them when you pretend that your version of Christianity fits, as you pick and choose them to make your cult sound somehow more plausible. You have no evidence to show that it wasn’t a “small clique who decided to invent (or embellish a small kernel) an instant miracle-worker”, you just wish it is so.

You conveniently avoid the reality that your miracle worker was written up to believe in all the Tanakh BS; even though you admit that the Deluge, Joshua’s day the sun stood still, the Exodus, et.al. are largely BS. You acknowledge that the miracle birthing narratives are most probably BS. “But hey pay no attention to all that, but believe the miracle max part, cuz I like that part”.

Without the earlier Yahweh tradition, there could have never been the Jesus cult tradition….never mind the various other borrowing that was done during the Jesus construction that has been shown over and over. As you use all sorts of silly excuses to dis the development of the LDS.

I don’t have a special checklist. But I’d say what would be reasonably impressive from a god, would be a holy book that it helped make sure wasn’t chalk full of BS fables (Added to original quote: like the Deluge and the day the sun stood still), nor had people latter forging changes into it. It would be more impressive if the holy texts were more definitive as to who wrote them and that they actually knew the people they were talking about. Islam has that part going for it, but little else. It would be more impressive still, if it had guidance that clearly couldn’t have possibly have been known in its day. It would also be far more reasonable if so much of the Bible didn't talk in terms of how little goat herders knew. For example, just how far was Jesus supposed to see when Satan took him up to the mountain top, when we are on a spherical planet? And if there had to be parlor tricks, then it would be even more impressive if such an event was noticed by other peoples and written down and preserved. For example, if somehow there was a 24 hour day in Canaan, then it would be fascinating to have the Egyptians writing about it in absolute panic; or maybe the Chinese writing about a night that never seemed to end. At a smaller level, just imagine if Pilate had written back to Rome about a rather odd character, that the Jewish rabbinical leaders insisted had to be executed. Since Rome did keep good records, it certainly wouldn’t have been hard to manage…for a REAL god. Instead we get stories about the purportedly worldly renowned King Solomon cuz he was so damn wise. Yet, the world never seemed to notice. Yahweh did so many massive magic tricks as part of the Exodus, in part, to make sure the Egyptians would know he is the Lord. Yet, all we know is Yahwehwho...

If this purported Christian God of the eternal torment and heaven type, really was interested in helping humans make the right choice, it has certainly done a really shitty job of it. Today, even the percentage of Christians is probably down to 28-30% of the world population. The Christian population probably peaked out around 1900, with roughly 34% of the world population. In 1800, it was only 22% (see below linky)
http://christianityinview.com/religion-statistics.html

Even if we assume that all of Europe was Christian in 1500AD, that would put Christianity only at 18% of the population. And in 1000AD Europe was only 15% of the world population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#By_world_region

So for a god that purported exists and cares about his little ant farm, he sure never did a good job getting the word out...
 
Before i left the Church, it struck me that religion was a lot like white supremacy, UFOs, Bigfoot, reincarnation, astral travel, and idea that the rocket Evel Knievel rode across the Snake River qualified as a motorcycle... The only people that accepted the evidence were those that already agreed with the conclusion.
 
If you said "ribbit, ribbit" all the time, people would ask if you're a frog. Would it mean they're weird to ask that?


Well gee wiz Lion the only reason we say "that's not evidence" is because...

Well gee wiz Lion, why did you choose to ignore the response that addressed the point you were trying to make?

As if 'non-believers' need an excuse to use their favourite three words...
That's not evidence.

The Bible is evidence that somebody wrote a story about a supernatural creature and its interactions with our species, or possibly even that the author(s) of the Bible believed this story. It is not evidence that this story is credible. Do you understand the distinction?

I think you understand the distinction but choose to ignore it because your position is based on a falsehood and you know it. What good is your faith if you have to resort to falsehoods to back it up?
 
If you said "ribbit, ribbit" all the time, people would ask if you're a frog. Would it mean they're weird to ask that?


Well gee wiz Lion the only reason we say "that's not evidence" is because...

You know you believe weird things, so why pretend it's the atheists who have a problem for wanting truth instead of blind faith in stories?
 
Last edited:
Why Won't God Heal Amputees? That's an important one for believers in miraculous cures, because for us to regrow limbs is rather obviously contrary to known laws of nature. However, it would not be a problem for an allegedly omnipotent being.

Amputees do get healed.

You must mean in the context ; having to "Live" without that missing limb.
 
Why Won't God Heal Amputees? That's an important one for believers in miraculous cures, because for us to regrow limbs is rather obviously contrary to known laws of nature. However, it would not be a problem for an allegedly omnipotent being.
Amputees do get healed.
Don't make me laugh. We don't have any limb-regeneration at all. Certainly nothing like what starfish and salamanders can do.

You must mean in the context ; having to "Live" without that missing limb.
Moving the goalposts with a convenient made-up "context".
 
Why Won't God Heal Amputees? That's an important one for believers in miraculous cures, because for us to regrow limbs is rather obviously contrary to known laws of nature. However, it would not be a problem for an allegedly omnipotent being.

Amputees do get healed.

You must mean in the context ; having to "Live" without that missing limb.
But then, that 'adaptation' is not miraculous healing. No need for God.
So, STILL offering a 'heal' that doesn't require a belief in a deity.
Unless you're on the fourteenth level of the dungeon and you cleric does the healing between two encounters... That would restore my faith.









In Zeus, Ki, Ra, Amaterasu, Quetzalcoatl, Garl Glittergold, Bastet, Arioch...
 
Last edited:
See 2 Corinthians Chapter 5

Fuck that - show me a case from the last ten years. There's no world shortage of amputees; surely they can't all have insufficient faith to be worthy of a new limb?

Rumours of something happening thousands of years ago are only convincing to those who started out convinced.
 
Don't make me laugh. We don't have any limb-regeneration at all. Certainly nothing like what starfish and salamanders can do.

Moving the goalposts with a convenient made-up "context".

How about making the distance of the goalposts the same as yours ;)

Anyway we may interestingly have some limb-regeneration despite what one expects. I remember (perhaps others here also) a report a few years back about a girls finger that grew back. The gist of the process or technique was to use some anti clotting agent or method - not to heal completely , carefully under medical expertise observation allowing the finger to grow. The cells knew what to do . Not an argument but interestingly worth looking up.
 
See 2 Corinthians Chapter 5
The "awaiting a new body" chapter.

One of my cousins had a heart attack while choking on a hot dog. But he'd been feeling very poorly in the days prior, so his sister and preacher prayed for his healing (as "testified" during the preacher's sermon at the funeral).

They prayed, and next day God killed the man by choking him and giving him a heart attack. He died in terror and pain at 53 years old.

The preacher put a "positive" spin on it... God DID hear the prayer! He healed the man of life by killing him.

My cousin, the sister, would not have been praying for her brother's death. She wanted him to enjoy his life, THAT was the point of the prayer. And the man was happy to be alive, so if he thought anyone's prayer for healing might cause his death, he would rightly have been terrified by it. So the positive spin on death isn't cheering so much as a despicable lie based on hateful values that are characteristic of Christianity. It's a death cult.
 
Don't make me laugh. We don't have any limb-regeneration at all. Certainly nothing like what starfish and salamanders can do.

Moving the goalposts with a convenient made-up "context".

How about making the distance of the goalposts the same as yours ;)

Anyway we may interestingly have some limb-regeneration despite what one expects. I remember (perhaps others here also) a report a few years back about a girls finger that grew back. The gist of the process or technique was to use some anti clotting agent or method - not to heal completely , carefully under medical expertise observation allowing the finger to grow. The cells knew what to do . Not an argument but interestingly worth looking up.
I think i read in Reader's Digest about 30 years ago, kids under a certain age will sometimes regrow partially amputated fingers if they're not sewn shut, just staunched and bandaged. But that 'minimum age' thing makes it a matter of biology, not divine miracles.

IIRC, the age cut-off appeared to be a few years before the age I was at when the end of my finger was cut off. Gosh, darn, pooie.
 
The question asked was "why doesn't God heal amputees"?
...not, "Does God heal amputees".
 
Back
Top Bottom