120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Knowledge of historical events is based on the written documents saying the events happened. Get used to it!

The physical laws of the universe make it impossible for dead people to rise up from their graves and fly up into space under their own power. Agree or disagree?

Maybe under normal conditions, conditions we're familiar with. Not necessarily ALL situations.

Any "laws of physics" which are scientific must necessarily make room for any events which have actually happened. You cannot impose an ideology which dictates that certain supposed events could never have happened regardless of the reports/evidence claiming they did happen.

You have not demonstrated that the Bible miracles actually happened. Get back to us when you are able to do so.

We have the same kind of evidence for the Jesus miracle acts as we have for many of our historical facts. My point is that the Jesus miracle healings and the resurrection are based on evidence, not that ALL the Bible miracle stories are.

It's consistent with science to propose a skeptical scheme for judging what events are likely or unlikely to have happened, but it is unscientific to impose a dogma which dictates that certain events could not possibly have ever happened.

It is impossible for dead people to rise up from their graves and fly off into space under their own power. Not unlikely, but impossible. Case closed. If you disagree, explain how such an event could happen using the laws of science.

I can't explain how voices and visual images arrive on my computer screen. I observe what happens without knowing how it happens, and I read what others have observed. I believe the documents from history, generally, without knowing how the events reported in them happened.

Science explains how the events happen, which have been reported, and it can cast doubt on the probability of the reported events, but it cannot dictate what did or did not happen, or that it could not have happened.

What is described in the bible as being miracles is not evidence that actual miracles occurred as described.

I.e., claims that something happened are not evidence that it happened. Thus, no [written] account that something happened is evidence that it happened.

And therefore, there is no evidence for historical events 1000 or 2000 years ago. All those alleged events are based only on documents saying the events happened, which "is not evidence that" the actual events "occurred as described." ? ? ? ?

This has been explained to you in the past, and yet you persist with your lies.

You mean it's not true that historians rely on written documents from the past as evidence for what happened? This is a vicious lie?

1. Historians don't believe in the veracity of historical events simply because someone wrote a story about it, they look for corroborating evidence.

For many historical events there is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, and yet historians believe the "story" in the document.

2. Second, there is not a single miracle, i.e. an event that defies the laws of physics, in our historical . . .

The miracle acts of Jesus did not necessarily defy the laws of physics. If they happened, then they were probably in accordance with the laws of physics. These "laws" do not dictate for all times and situations what necessarily can and cannot happen. They apply widely to most situations, or virtually all, but don't purport to define everything that is possible or impossible throughout the universe in all conceivable situations.

. . . not a single miracle . . . in our historical record that is believed to be true by modern historians. Not one.

It's not their function to issue an approved list of accepted miracles. They have not made pronouncements on most miracle claims. There is no official statement from them condemning particular miracle claims.

On the History Channel once I heard an historian say bluntly that the mad monk Rasputin did perform healing of the child with a blood disease.

There are many difficult questions which historians leave open to differing interpretations, allowing the possibility of explanations unacceptable to some skeptics and debunkers and nonbelievers. You cannot insist that all historians have officially certified your doctrines about whether certain doubtful events did or did not happen.

Your argument that the miracle claims of the Bible should be believed because historians routinely consider miracle claims to be true is a lie.

If I told that lie, I should be taken out and shot.

The fact that you keep repeating this lie is a testament to your character and your intentions here.

What I keep repeating is that the evidence for the miracles of Jesus is the same kind that we rely on for normal historical events, i.e., written documents saying the events happened, and that we have more of such evidence, for those miracle acts, than we have for many historical events that are routinely accepted as part of the historical record.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Learner,

Here is your choice about the Jesus miracles:
1) They're the acts of a powerful being making nature to do something it normally wouldn't do.

Reasonable possibility.

2) Events like those don't happen in nature.

Most of the time. Maybe 99.99% of the time.

3) You just don't know at all what the truth of it is.

There's much we don't know. But we have evidence that these events happened, just as for normal historical events. So it's reasonable to believe they happened, and to hope that this power does exist as a possibility. Reasonable hope.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

Why do you insist on making it sound so complicated? Let's correct your wording:

The Bible contains evidence, reports, that an unusual person demonstrated singular superhuman power to heal physical afflictions.

Just as many documents from history contain reports of events -- most of them not so unusual. All of them are evidence for what happened, and we can judge the credibility by how close these sources are to the reported events, and by how many sources there are for the events.

It is not evidence that this story is credible. Do you understand the distinction?

There's no one single "this story" here. Some reports in the Bible are less credible than the Jesus miracles. It's better to speak of the credibility of this or that claim in the Bible rather than extract one single "this story" from it all and certify the whole collection as entirely credible or entirely a hoax.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Getting on board with "how we understand the world to work"

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.

The world "works" according to what is observed. And what we personally don't observe directly we can know of from the reports of others who observed it -- i.e., we rely on sources, including written documents from the past, telling us what happened. That's why it's reasonable to believe the historical documents, including the gospel accounts, about the events, requiring extra sources for miracle claims.

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.

But you can't rule out events which go against the norm. Maybe unusual events are possible, which are singular or contrary to the normal experience. So we rely on what's reported, if there are extra sources, and if these are close enough to the time of the reported events.

"how we understand the world to work" is a legitimate rule in general, but it cannot become a doctrine which overrules reports or observations that run against the norm.

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.

There's very little agreement on "the rules of the world as we understand them." If there are extra sources close to the time of the reported events, this can be sufficient extra evidence for believing the unusual events reported. There is no one hard rule about how much extra evidence is required.

But rather than irrefutable evidence, you're offering refutable evidence, . . .

No one has refuted the Paul epistles and the 4 gospels. These can be doubted, and should be, and subjected to scrutiny, but they are not refuted. They are credible as to the general facts, and of course there are details there which are dubious. These do not undermine the general presentation of what happened.

. . . presupposition, and a serious (and apparently willful) misunderstanding of how history and historians work.

You have explained nothing about "how history and historians work" which discredits the miracles of Jesus in the gospel accounts. All you have is your one doctrine that miracle events can never happen. Other than this, you have nothing to discredit these sources as evidence for the Jesus miracle acts.

And finger-pointing, blaming the critics for your failures.... Very Christain of you.

"Christain"?

Did you finally discover those 4th-century documents showing how the Council of Nicea debated whether it was Jesus or John the Baptist who would be the Messiah? You said they held a roll-call vote on this and the Jesus faction just barely won the vote by a whisker, after a hard-fought campaign and several riots which the local police had to put down.

How's your search for that evidence going?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You have explained nothing about "how history and historians work" which discredits the miracles of Jesus in the gospel accounts. All you have is your one doctrine that miracle events can never happen. Other than this, you have nothing to discredit these sources as evidence for the Jesus miracle acts.

You always do this.
No matter what effort is made to show and support and explain, you hit the 'reset' and claim no one's every shown you stuff, no one's ever produced another example, no one's ever found something they've actually posted in the thread.
You make it clear you're not going to evaluate anything with any honesty and then crow a victory when people stop bothering.

You could almost be a trump staffer.

Did you finally discover those 4th-century documents showing how the Council of Nicea debated whether it was Jesus or John the Baptist who would be the Messiah? You said they held a roll-call vote on this and the Jesus faction just barely won the vote by a whisker, after a hard-fought campaign and several riots which the local police had to put down.

Not quite what i said... You have an active imagination, or a piddle poor memory.
But you did make it clear that producing the references would not advance the argument, anyway.

 

[DBT]

And yet, DBT's statement remains true.

Surely he's the PILLAR of Absolute Truth.

Just pointing out the errors in your position. Nothing personal.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

When we do have the necessary EXTRA EVIDENCE, it's reasonable to believe it.

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.

Our own direct current observations of the world leave out 99.99999% of all the stuff happening. There could easily be some unique or unusual events happening, or which did happen, which are rare enough that the majority of us never experience such things. It's not reasonable to think that if we never personally experienced such a thing ourselves that then no such thing could ever happen. Our non-experience of it might reduce the probability that it ever happens, or happened, but if there are some reports saying it happened, it increases the possibility that it did happen, even though we did not experience such a thing ourselves. So it can't be ruled out as a possibility.

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.

Sure, but what if you come across 1 or 2 further reports saying this, beyond that one note. Doesn't that increase the possibility that it happened? Maybe it's still less than 50% probable, but the probability increases incrementally with each additional report.

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.

Probably, but if there are extra sources saying it happened, then the likelihood of it being true increases. Some odd events do happen even though most of us never experience such a thing.

We have plenty of experience ourselves with elephants, and in all that experience they have never been observed to be flying around. If somebody says otherwise, the burden of proof is on them.

Only one person claiming it is not enough. Or two. But if others also say this happened, and witnesses were present, then at some point it we have to start taking it seriously. It starts to be in the doubtful rather than absolutely-not category.

You're using the elephants example to make your point, because of the humor and also the extreme nature of it, so we reject it as ridiculous. But that's only because there are NO examples of any such observations. But that doesn't prove your point that no type of phenomenon can ever happen unless it is observed regularly by most people.

Mundane claims require mundane evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This is just a cliché of words, leaving "extraordinary" undefined. What is required is extra evidence. 1 or 2 extra sources making the same claim. Then it starts to become more serious as a possibility.

There have been no reports of elephants flying around, in the written sources from history, but there is a case, reported in multiple documents, of someone performing healing acts, raising the dead, and resurrecting from the dead.

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.

ONLY ONE reported description, yes -- We need more than just one account. If it's a past event being reported, especially centuries ago, then written descriptions are virtually the only evidence there is, for any events. More than one source helps to increase the credibility, which we should require. But it's unreasonable to demand something beyond written descriptions. This is virtually all we have for ANY past events, or events more than 100-200 years ago.

We do not know who exactly the author was in many cases, what their own various motives were for writing the stories . . .

We seldom know this about the authors of ANY ancient source. We may have a name, but just a name doesn't really tell us much. You could throw out much of our knowledge of history by saying we don't know enough about the author/source, their motive, what they were really up to in writing this, or what ax they might have been grinding.

(they do not come across as "reports" of events though, like a news report.

Very little of our sources for history, for 1000+ years ago, come across like a news report. Much of it is propagandistic, nationalistic/tribalistic, philosophical/religious, etc. If we had to rely only on objective accounts like news reports as sources for history, we'd have to toss out most of the history books.

Instead, they come across as fictional and mythical and exaggerated accounts, like various other stories in human history).

Like most or all our sources for ancient history. You're making a good case why we should scrap all the history books, since the sources for them contain too much fiction and myth and exaggeration.

People are just misreading and misunderstanding them if they think they are accurate and unbiased descriptions of events.

Do you think you're describing only the Bible accounts of events? You're describing all our sources for history. Very few of them are "accurate and unbiased descriptions" of what happened. It's OK to conjecture that the "historians" are likely more reliable or accurate or unbiased than some others, but all of them fall short of the ideal, and much of our history is taken also from the NON-"historians" -- we don't throw out all the sources other than the "historians."

Much of our standard history for about 1000 BC to 100 AD relies on the Bible accounts for some of those events. Where it overlaps with Herodotus and Plutarch and Tacitus etc., it's OK to say the latter have priority, usually, but there's more agreement than disagreement with these. The Bible accounts are a legitimate source for the period, even if not the highest in credibility. Some parts of these accounts are "accurate and unbiased descriptions" of what happened, while the inaccurate or biased parts are not totally false, or fiction, and we can apply our critical methods to distinguish the truth from the error. It's essentially the same as with Herodotus etc. No historians today consider Herodotus etc. as totally "accurate and unbiased" accounts.

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.

Most of our evidence for historical events (1000+ years ago) is based on "mere words in a book" claiming this or that happened. If such a source is not good-enough evidence for what really happened, then we need to scrap all those history books and shut down the history classes in the schools and universities.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. [emphasis added]

You could put these words to music and chant it, and clap your hands to add extra oomph.

Unusual "extraordinary" claims, miracles, etc. require extra evidence. Which we have for the Jesus miracle acts, and which we don't have for any of the other ancient miracle legends. Of course there's no scientific objective principle dictating exactly how much extra evidence is necessary.

If we had such an objective standard, it would probably include the requirement that there has to be at least as much evidence as there is for many of our accepted historical facts (not "extraordinary"). And in fact there's more evidence for the Jesus miracle acts than there is for much of our history in the standard sources.

The miracle claims in the gospel accounts should be scrutinized more carefully than NON-"extraordinary" claims, but that doesn't mean they have to be dismissed with a jingoistic slogan which is nothing but a simplistic obsession on this one word. It's sufficient to just require extra evidence for anything highly unusual.

 

[Juma]

[...Mindless blabber...]

ROTFL...

Oh my floor is so shiny these days..

 

[Keith&Co.]

The miracle claims in the gospel accounts should be scrutinized more carefully than NON-"extraordinary" claims, but that doesn't mean they have to be dismissed with a jingoistic slogan which is nothing but a simplistic obsession on this one word. It's sufficient to just require extra evidence for anything highly unusual.

Man, you have the attention span of a frog in a blender.
Extraordinary has been explained multiple times. It's been directly explained with respect to claims that IMPOSSIBLE SHIT has happened, and been recorded and presented as proof of Jesus' divinity. The nature of evidence required to support these claims has been discussed to great lengths here, with examples given, and counter examples listed, in this thread, and you just pretend that it never happened.

You don't WANT to examine any miracle claims other than the ones you already exist and you aren't willing to honestly scrutinize any criticisms of those claims.

And you act like your position is the morally superior one. That's hilarious.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Gospel miracles would have been thought of as extraordinary at the time they were first made. Huge crowds sought Jesus out to see the evidence for themselves.

Why? Because extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence.

And the corrolary of this ECDEE proposition is that extraordinary claims are (ironically) much easier to debunk than mundane claims. They are harder to sustain than non-extraordinary claim. So they don't survive unless they are supported by equally strong evidence.

 

[Brian63]

Lumpenproletariat,

I just read your reply above to my earlier post, and you have misstated what my actual position is several times. You often abbreviate what my viewpoint is by attributing absolutist words to me that actually do not represent my views. I try to be careful and emphasize that we are dealing in terms of probabilities, likelihoods, chances, etc. You have instead used absolutist terms and phrases like "could ever" or "possible" or "impossible" to describe my views, so it is hard to take you as an accurate describer of what my position really is. Just as some examples here---

It's not reasonable to think that if we never personally experienced such a thing ourselves that then no such thing could ever happen...So it can't be ruled out as a possibility.

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.

Sure, but what if you come across 1 or 2 further reports saying this, beyond that one note. Doesn't that increase the possibility that it happened? Maybe it's still less than 50% probable, but the probability increases incrementally with each additional report.

Yes, if those additional reports are demonstrated to be generally unbiased, then that increases the POSSIBILITY that it happened. It does not, to any significant degree, make it likely that it really happened though. The PROBABILITY would still be in the likelihood that it is a fictional story or somesuch.

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.

Probably, but if there are extra sources saying it happened, then the likelihood of it being true increases. Some odd events do happen even though most of us never experience such a thing.

Notice the change in terms you are giving there, however. You say it is "probably" the case that such a miracle event did not happen. Even if its probability increases with further evidence, it will still be the case that it more likely did not. So even if its likelihood increased from a 3% chance to an 8% chance, it is still likely to not have happened as such. There is still a much stronger probability that it did not happen. Please again note that I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to have happened. We are dealing in what is PROBABLE AND IMPROBABLE here, so that needs to be figured into your worldview so you do not confuse those terms and concepts again here.

We have plenty of experience ourselves with elephants, and in all that experience they have never been observed to be flying around. If somebody says otherwise, the burden of proof is on them.

Only one person claiming it is not enough. Or two. But if others also say this happened, and witnesses were present, then at some point it we have to start taking it seriously. It starts to be in the doubtful rather than absolutely-not category.

You're using the elephants example to make your point, because of the humor and also the extreme nature of it, so we reject it as ridiculous. But that's only because there are NO examples of any such observations. But that doesn't prove your point that no type of phenomenon can ever happen unless it is observed regularly by most people.

Please stop so blatantly and flagrantly misstating what my actual position is. It is not my argument that such phenomenon that we have given as examples of miracles CANNOT EVER HAPPEN. Instead, we need to work within the confines of just what is most likely to be the case. We work in probabilities, odds, chances, likelihoods, evidence, etc. We just do not usually have the luxury of being able to have proof, absolute certitude, etc. Please stop misstating and confusing what my real position is here.

Thank you,

Brian

 

[Juma]

The Gospel miracles would have been thought of as extraordinary at the time they were first made. Huge crowds sought Jesus out to see the evidence for themselves.
Why?
Because extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence.

And the corrolary of this ECDEE proposition is that extraordinary claims are (ironically) much easier to debunk than mundane claims. So they don't survive unless they are supported by equally strong evidence.

There is no evidence of any crowds at all. Just christian propaganda.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Gospel miracles would have been thought of as extraordinary at the time they were first made. Huge crowds sought Jesus out to see the evidence for themselves.
Why?
Because extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence.

And the corrolary of this ECDEE proposition is that extraordinary claims are (ironically) much easier to debunk than mundane claims. They are harder to sustain than non-extraordinary claims. So they don't survive unless they are supported by equally strong evidence.

There is no evidence of any crowds at all. Just christian propaganda.

Who are these 'Christians'?
What evidence do you have for their existence?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And the corrolary of this ECDEE proposition

Acronyms are hard.
Evidence is harder...

 

[bilby]

The Gospel miracles would have been thought of as extraordinary at the time they were first made. Huge crowds sought Jesus out to see the evidence for themselves.
Why?
Because extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence.

And the corrolary of this ECDEE proposition is that extraordinary claims are (ironically) much easier to debunk than mundane claims. So they don't survive unless they are supported by equally strong evidence.

There is no evidence of any crowds at all. Just christian propaganda.

Oh yeah? Well, if Harry Potter wasn't really the best Quidditch player, how do you explain the fact that huge crowds turned out to watch him play? Are you seriously suggesting that the testimony of every single person at Hogwarts, staff and pupils alike, is insufficient for you? You atheists just love to say 'That's not evidence'.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is no Christian propaganda if there are no Christians to produce it.

These proto-Christians are talking about themselves when they speak about the crowds who flocked to see if the extraordinary claims were true.

 

[bilby]

There is no Christian propaganda if there are no Christians to produce it.

These proto-Christians are talking about themselves when they speak about the crowds who flocked to see if the extraordinary claims were true.

The pupils of Hogwarts are talking about themselves when they say how great a Quidditch player Harry Potter is.

But that is not evidence of either their reality, or of Harry's.

The authors of the Bible, like J K Rowling, are talking about whatever they felt like writing down, when they wrote stuff in their books about supposed events that took place many hundreds of years previously.

None of the gospels was written by eyewitnesses (unless we believe the historically and stylistically implausible claims made in the Bible itself, which would be a circular argument - source; source); and there is no other indication than the Bible that what was written in the gospels reflects actual events - there is not one shred of evidence for any of this stuff from other sources, either archaeological or written - despite the Romans being excellent record keepers.

The only evidence we have of Harry Potter is the books by Ms Rowling; The only evidence we have of Jesus is the Gospels, whose authors are uncertain. Harry Potter is therefore better evidenced than Jesus, although Jesus does have a much bigger, and somewhat more enthusiastic, fan club.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess people talking about THEMSELVES never overestimate or exaggerate or just fucking make numbers up?

The organizers of the Million Man March estimated attendance at 1.5 to 2 million.
The park service estimated 400,000.

 

[abaddon]

I wish there was a way to measure how much the theists believe their own arguments. How can someone not see that "but the book says so" is not supporting evidence for what the book says?

The whole "but you'd have to throw all history out if you won't accept this story" is a riff on historians saying there's not enough reason to fully reject an historical Jesus. One strategy I've seen here is taking how the evidence for several other bits of history is fairly scant too, and twisting it into (in effect) "if you doubt the miracles described in this document then you doubt it as an historical document and that means you must doubt all historical documents". Patently stupid but at least it looks vaguely like something they've seen from "an authority" somewhere before.

There are threads where they argue they aren't blind faith believers, that their faith is well-reasoned. But even there they must contort everything to make their argument seem reasoned. They turn "blind faith" into "a belief with no reasons for it at all" (a thing that doesn't exist) and turn "reasoned" into "any reason that works for me" (which very exactly is blind faith). When they get sick of being asked to reason better... or maybe it's that they get an inkling of how fuzzy their brains are and that tidbit of self-awareness needs to be forced out of consciousness ... they turn to projecting their problems at atheists: It's YOU that is blinded by faith!

 

[Learner]

The pupils of Hogwarts are talking about themselves when they say how great a Quidditch player Harry Potter is. But that is not evidence of either their reality, or of Harry's.

The authors of the Bible, like J K Rowling, are talking about whatever they felt like writing down, when they wrote stuff in their books about supposed events that took place many hundreds of years previously.

Of course the obvious reality is that H.Potter is quite a sophisticated story in the sense that it is well crafted in writing and by 21st century means by "one lone author"and in addition to that : made through much easily accessed modern publications , printing presses and mass production. I could see why the comparison you make of an ancient story and H.Potter making Jesus seemingly just as popular indeed to this day just as He was back then.

I guess I'm trying to say ; it would be quite hard to find writings of that "ancient period" to compare with the bible in your analogy.

None of the gospels was written by eyewitnesses (unless we believe the historically and stylistically implausible claims made in the Bible itself, which would be a circular argument - source; source); and there is no other indication than the Bible that what was written in the gospels reflects actual events - there is not one shred of evidence for any of this stuff from other sources, either archaeological or written - despite the Romans being excellent record keepers.

But its understandable that the mere acknowledgement by recording the events of Jesus, His teachings, His healings, His followers is counter to the ruler status of Caesar and the whole Roman empire who also worship pagan gods. It would be quite contradictary to their traditions and customs.