120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

When Stephen Hawking dies, come back and ask me.
Then there will only be one actual 'being' left.

...see how existence makes a difference?

kind of a cheesy method, then. By that method, you can only prove that your God is a great being by first showing that he is a being.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

That smarter is higher or better is an objective fact, not an individual choice.

You don't think there's any value in being smarter? I just take this as self-evident that smartness has value. An ape is smarter than a squirrel, and so has more intrinsic value.

I did not say there's no value in being smarter.

I questioned how to determine this is an objective means of determining 'greater' beings, . . .

It's equivalent. Smarter = more value = "higher" or "better" or "superior"

So smarter per se is "higher," or it's a part of "higher."

. . . along the path of determining the maximally greatest being, and you admit you've got no understanding of what 'objective' means. and that this is a subjective choice of yours.

No, if it was subjective, then there'd be others who say smarter is not better or higher or superior. And no one says that. So this is not my unique original notion, but is EVERYONE'S notion, and so it's not subjective. I did not choose for smarter to be higher or better.

We all know smarter is better, as an objective fact of the universe, not something some people chose subjectively, with others making a contrary choice.

Dude, if you won't understand the discussion, try not to flap your dummy flag to highly.

You mean "too high."

Your "dummy" outburst proves that smartness is higher or superior and that "dummy" is lower, and that this is not someone's subjective choice.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

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.

Also - saying I don't believe you isn't really a "reason" not to believe. It's merely a personal opinion. The sceptic who says they don't trust global warming scientists isn't engaging is 'reasoning'. Accusing someone of "making it up" isn't proof that they actually ARE making it up.

And much of the counter-apologetics I see mostly boils down to statements of disbelief.
...argument from incredulity. But that's not 120 reasons.

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

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Smarter is higher, which means humans are higher than pigs, oxen, etc.

However you put it, these "characteristics" are the basis for our choice to save the higher over the lower. Or these "characteristics" determine what is the higher and what is the lower.

According to the instructions given to Noah, he was to save two distinct groups. He was to save all the animals that breathe through their nostrils, because those animals have spirit. Nothing about intelligence.

Of those, there were two pair of each animal that was unclean, and seven pair of the 'clean' animals, to make sure there were plenty for the sacrifices which were pleasing to the Lord. Again, nothing about intellect or usefulness to any other being except God.

So if we're going by 'saved,' as the criteria, then animals with souls are more valued than animals without souls (fish, insects, worms), and the 'clean' animals are more valued than the unclean.

It's hard to figure where Man fits into that criteria. I mean, we have nostrils, so we have spirits, but we're not appropriate for sacrifices. Maybe men were the third most valued animals on the ark, added only because we were needed to perform the sacrifices and make the savory smoke that delighted the Lord?

So maybe Humans are great, but pigs are greater, and unblemished oxen are the greatest?

So if you were the mayor, you would have the emergency services rescue pigs first, and only then the humans, if there's time. Pigs would get priority because they're higher.

Or at least you'd have no objection to that, if those in power made that decision. There would be nothing "wrong" about giving priority to the pigs, according to you.

Just depends on where you look for 'the objective values' of any living creature.

But if you look in the wrong place, then you're wrong, or you get a wrong result. If you look for the value in skin color or hair color, you'll produce a "value" criterion which is false. Smartness is a correct value, whereas skin color or hair color is not.

I.e., those who are smarter are superior or higher, whereas those of a particular hair color or skin color are not thereby superior or higher. So if skin or hair color is made the criterion for higher, it is a false result, and choices made according to that criterion are false choices, and the result of making such choices will be to make everyone worse off.

Or you can just make up a system that puts you at the front of the line to be saved, I guess, since that's your biggest goal.

No, if there are non-humans who are superior to us, smarter etc., then they would be ahead of us in line.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I questioned how to determine this is an objective means of determining 'greater' beings, . . .

It's equivalent. Smarter = more value = "higher" or "better" or "superior"

Says you. I should believe this is objective for the universe...why?

No, if it was subjective, then there'd be others who say smarter is not better or higher or superior. And no one says that.

No, Lumpy. Even if everyone agrees on a subjective opinion, that does not make it an objective fact.

We all know smarter is better, as an objective fact of the universe, not something some people chose subjectively, with others making a contrary choice.

That's just not true, Lumpy. Many have questioned, if intelligence is valuable, why haven't more creatures evolved intelligence? Maybe it's just a fluke.
And again, note that someone who thinks they're intelligent offers intelligent as a trait of 'higher' beings. That's not convincing as it might be.

Your "dummy" outburst proves that smartness is higher or superior and that "dummy" is lower, and that this is not someone's subjective choice.

No, it doesn't prove that, Lumpy.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It is an objective fact of the universe that humans are superior. Not just a subjective or personal preference.

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

Where do you go to measure the universe's values?

A good starting point would be at the Temple of Deep Thought

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So if you were the mayor, you would have the emergency services rescue pigs first, and only then the humans, if there's time. Pigs would get priority because they're higher.

So much for intelligence...

I did not claim this as my own personal standards, Lumpy.
You're the one who introduced 'saving' as part of the search for 'higher' or 'greater.' But the Christain sourcebook, when it talks about 'saving' doesn't talk about intellect at all.

You, yourself, talked about 'higher' being(s) being the one(s) who gave Jesus the power to heal. That's not connected to intellect.

The problem with the ontological argument remains that no one seems to be able to come up with an objective standard for 'greater.'

Or at least you'd have no objection to that, if those in power made that decision. There would be nothing "wrong" about giving priority to the pigs, according to you.

Once more, try reading my posts for what I'm actually saying, Lumpy. It'll get you much farther and you'll look less foolish.

Just depends on where you look for 'the objective values' of any living creature.

But if you look in the wrong place, then you're wrong, or you get a wrong result.

That, I would agree with.
So, how do we objectively determine the right place to look for a definition of 'greater?'

If you look for the value in skin color or hair color, you'll produce a "value" criterion which is false. Smartness is a correct value, whereas skin color or hair color is not.

So you say... So you have yet to actually show evidence for. You just keep saying it and saying it, and it's not a compelling argument because YOU say all kinds of things that are not true.

Or you can just make up a system that puts you at the front of the line to be saved, I guess, since that's your biggest goal.

No, if there are non-humans who are superior to us, smarter etc., then they would be ahead of us in line.

You're still sticking to 'saving' and value as opposed to 'greater.' I doubt that you're ever going to actually understand the argument well enough to contribute...

- - - Updated - - -

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

That's pretty much DEFINITIVELY subjective, Lumpy.

 

[Atheos]

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.

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

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Did no one ever tell you that arguments by incredulity aren't very useful?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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. .

Oh, he has. Follow the link in his post. Kyroot is constantly expanding his reasons.

 

[Atheos]

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.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It is an objective fact that some creatures are superior to others and thus have more value and more entitlement to be protected.

Maybe Yahweh thought cockroaches were awesome, as he seemed have gotten them right at least 320 million years ago.

No, just because a species has been around longer or hasn't changed doesn't make it superior or higher or of greater value.

If you condone killing roaches by humans, but would protect humans from being killed by roaches or other animals, then you're saying the humans have higher value.

And if you would demand that other humans do the same, then you're saying this is based on something objectively factual and is not just a subjective impulse, because you're not entitled to impose your subjective impulses onto others.

. . . as long as we are just making shit up on the fly.

What's being made up? You would protect the roaches from being killed? or you would not protect the human from being killed by an animal?

I'm not "making up shit" when I say everyone would protect the human from being killed, or would expect another also to make that choice, but also would not prevent the human from killing a roach; it's not just an individual personal choice, because we each impose that choice onto others, expecting them to choose the same, because it's not an option to choose not to protect the human from being killed, if you can easily do it, and it's not an option to choose to prevent a human from killing an insect pest.

We're allowed to kill the insect pest, but also required to protect the human from being killed, if we can. To not choose this priority is to be wrong -- it's not just an individual preference different than what others choose. No, it's a wrong choice, based on some false premise than all creatures are of equal value, which they are not, because some are superior to others or have more value.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you condone killing roaches by humans, but would protect humans from being killed by roaches or other animals, then you're saying the humans have higher value.

Higher value to humans, yes. But that could probably be said about any gregarious species... Save the gene pool over competitors...
That doesn't make humans of higher value to the universe.

And yet again, 'value' is not the same as 'greater.' Despite your willingness to insist that this is so.

 

[funinspace]

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

Where do you go to measure the universe's values?

A good starting point would be at the Temple of Deep Thought

No, just consider ...

Next you are probably going to tell me that 42 is not the answer....pfffft.

 

[funinspace]

Maybe Yahweh thought cockroaches were awesome, as he seemed have gotten them right at least 320 million years ago.

No, just because a species has been around longer or hasn't changed doesn't make it superior or higher or of greater value.

You don't think cockroaches are awesome? Seems like you are critiquing your Yahweh...

. . . as long as we are just making shit up on the fly.

What's being made up?

Why am I not surprised by this question...sigh....

How about try dealing with this later more serious post I made, and maybe you will answer your own question...maybe

(not necessarily THE objective standard, but a major standard)

You don't think there's any value in being smarter? I just take this as self-evident that smartness has value. An ape is smarter than a squirrel, and so has more intrinsic value.

Sure, 'smartness' or intelligence has a value. However, it is just one criteria. One can hardly use just this one category. In fact humans most certainly don't just use this one criteria. If humans did, then we wouldn't eat pigs and wouldn't go ape shit when someone wants some horse steak. Instead, we eat pork chops, and pass laws protecting horses being sold for meat. If we allowed dogs to be treated like we allow pig factories to treat pigs, people would loose their minds. Yet, these animals are about the same intelligence; and one has animal cruelty laws to protect it, and the other doesn't.

How many want rats as pets over turtles? Rats are certainly smarter, but somehow far more humans seam to like turtles more.

If smartness is not a value, then why do we try to become smarter? Why do we want kids to become educated?

Of course it is of high value. That is why no one gives a fuck about ethics, cuz smartness is so valuable...

 

[funinspace]

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?

 

[funinspace]

Is God at fault for not providing us with twice as many gospels/epistles for evidence?

You can complain that it would be better if we had still more sources, instead of only these 4 (5) early accounts, and it's true that it would be better if we had ten gospel accounts instead of only 4, and some early epistles from 2 or 3 apostles other than only Paul. But then the excess supply of accounts would make it a very extreme case in history, for that era, in which virtually no events got such attention in written accounts. To insist on so many additioal sources is to demand that this one event in history had to be documented way beyond any other, even the most famous historical events.

Ignoring your claim on the number of sources... Is your god at fault, I dunno? There are currently roughly 5 billion real live human beings headed towards your theological's construct of an eternal Auschwitz, due to them not recognizing the truthiness of the Good News memo that you claim is real.

You can't insist that claims of this nature absolutely require this extra overkill of evidence or early accounts and wide circulation.

You are right that we can't insist that the IPU deliver pink cotton candy to our door steps every morning. However, I guess it depends on what you think should be the goals of the god you imagine within your theological construct...regardless of our insistence's. Does torturing 5 billion humans for forever fit within your moral framework?

 

[Atheos]

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?

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

But in this same sense ALL historical facts rest on the "appeal to popularity" in that the reports that are more credible are the ones for which there are more sources.

Man, you're fond of this lie.

BETTER sources are more credible, not necessarily MORE sources.
A multitude of anonymous sources of unknown relation to the event are not more credible than 1 well-documented source of an eyewitness.
As you yourself sometimes point out, independent corroboration is superior to the accounts of people with a vested interest.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No, no, Appealing to popularity is a valid way to prove JESUS is true. Not Joseph Smith, Mohammed, UFOs, bigfoot, etc.

 

[Atheos]

Man, you're fond of this lie.

BETTER sources are more credible, not necessarily MORE sources.
A multitude of anonymous sources of unknown relation to the event are not more credible than 1 well-documented source of an eyewitness.
As you yourself sometimes point out, independent corroboration is superior to the accounts of people with a vested interest.

Lumpenproletariat is evidently unfamiliar with the fact that there is an entire field of study called "archaeology." Wouldn't hurt for him to familiarize himself with it before repeating this falsehood again.