120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Atheos]

Without corroboration from independent sources, there is no reason to believe (form a justified conviction) that the claims are true and factual.

There are plenty of historical facts, millions, which are reported by ONE SOURCE ONLY without any "corroboration from independent sources." And from this one source only we believe those facts. There IS REASON TO BELIEVE the claims based on one source only, without any corroboration.

(But if it's a miracle claim, there should be more than only one source for it to be taken seriously. I.e., a source near to the time of the alleged event(s).)

This is so laughable. This is a classic example of painting a bullseye around just the thing you wish is true.

First of all a minor correction: There are millions of historical claims that people provisionally accept as true that are reported by only one source. That is not the same as a "fact." There are no historical claims that people even provisionally accept as true that defy the laws of physics or involve circumventing known properties of human capacity, such as healing blind people or instantly curing paralysis with a touch. People believe such stories for religious reasons, not because they are credible. Everyone understands that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. People are willing to suspend this rule for things they want to believe, but rarely willing to do so for competing religious claims.

Rational people know that just because something is written down doesn't make it a fact. Many "facts" that survived for decades and even in some cases centuries in history books have been corrected as more complete records have been discovered. Witnesses to a crime may very well tell very different stories about what happened, and in that case we're talking about people who actually saw what happened.

Rational people also know that the Jesus stories are very much like the aforementioned "fish that got away" in my previous post. Every one of these tales recounts some extraordinary event but unfortunately none of them include the fish. It always seems to get away. When a fisherman keeps telling tales about yet another huge monster that got away it doesn't do anything to improve his credibility. The writers of the gospel narratives were caught red handed fabricating lies, yet you keep insisting that we should believe their other fish stories. It is very telling that every story these writers wrote of miracle events left behind not one shred of physical evidence. Every one of them is a fish story.

It is an untruth that the subsequent rewriters of the original gospel (GMark) are corroborative. They are not. Christianity may have spread because an untruth keeps getting told over and over again until people start believing it, so I don't blame you for trying that here. But we're not going to buy this no matter how many times you keep saying it. A story written by one or more members of a religious cult to glorify their cult leader, containing anecdotes about a magic person engaging in activities that defy the laws of physics is not even in the ballpark of credibility. Copycat writers spread out 10 years apart who obviously work from copies of the original story corroborate nothing.

But even if it were true that the 4 gospel narratives corroborate each other it is also an untruth to claim that sensible people will believe a miracle happened if 4 or 5 people say it happened but they don't have any physical evidence. Gullible people will, certainly. But to argue that sensible people with a knowledge of how common it is for people to lie about such things would accept such claims without physical evidence is just untrue.

This lame attempt to draw this sharpshooter bullseye around the story you have just makes me laugh every time I read it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are plenty of facts in mainline history sources for which there is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. There's virtually no ancient historian you can name who does not give us facts for which he is the ONLY source.

Okay. You have NO IDEA what historians actually use for corroboration. Noted.
Your objection is, therefore, pointed at and laughed at.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you want to claim that the miracles described in the Bible are evidenced then you have to also accept Athena, Ajax, Hector, etc. are evidenced by the Iliad.

The Iliad IS evidence for these, or some of these.

But it's mostly not very good evidence, because all we have is this ONE SOURCE ONLY for these, and it's better to have more than only one source; but also, Homer wrote his accounts at least 400 years after the events happened, making them much less reliable as a source, especially for miracle claims.

Whereas we have 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus, and these are dated from 30-70 years from the reputed events. So they are much stronger evidence for the events than Homer is for the Trojan War.

But even so there is no reason to reject Homer as evidence for some of the events and characters. Some of them were probably real historical figures to which he added his fiction details.

And the gospel accounts also probably added fictional elements to the real events. This does not discredit the factual part which constituted the original true story to which some later legend was added.

The question is: What was the original true account, or basic events in about 30 AD, to which some later fiction may have been added? The best answer is that Jesus really did demonstrate power such as we see with the miracle healing events. This explains why the later legend developed. Without this miracle element, it is impossible to explain how he became mythologized into a god in such a short time and how the accounts became published and copied and circulated.

NO!

There is one source for the "Jesus Miracles" - a religious tract from one religious culture, the Bible.

If you count multiple references from the same small cultural group to some event then there are thousands of references to acts of the ancient Greek gods in Greek literature. Do you claim this is good evidence of their veracity? How about the tens or hundreds of thousands of texts relating acts of their gods in Hindu cultural literature? Are these good evidence?

 

[Atheos]

we have 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus

Lumpenproletariat appears quite fond of this misrepresentation and parrots it at every opportunity. It is not true. But even if it were, 4 or 5 people claiming a miracle occurred is not sufficient for a reasonable person to suspend all skepticism and simply accept that a miracle occurred.

More to the point, once you start throwing in a miracle-performing god all bets are off when it comes to history. Did World War II actually happen or was Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich merely an illusion created amongst the vast tapestry of an illusion of past history created by a trickster god Last Thursday?

It is every bit as ridiculous to appeal to a miracle-working god to explain the miracles of one's favorite fairy tale as it is to appeal to one to explain the existence of the entirety of human history.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I still am unable to comprehend what is reasonable about believing a man can feed a multitude of 5,000 with five loaves of bread and two fish.

Ontologically speaking, miracles are just like gods. If they're part of your ontology you're not going to ask what is reasonable and what isn't. Yah, this stuff is dopey and not possible, but if I can accept that dead people come back to life and fly around in the sky, or that a magic spaceman is interested in how I use my penis, there's nothing too bizarre or incredible that I won't act like I think it's real.

 

[DBT]

''What it says in the scrolls is EVIDENCE for what happened. (usually the ONLY evidence)''

Therefore Brahma, Shiva, kali, etc, are true and actual Beings because that's what it says in the scrolls?

But also, they are evidence for possible historical figures like Krishna more than for abstract entities like the above.

Possible historical figures are not necessarily actual historical figures. There may not enough evidence to determine whether they are, or not.

Also, Brahma is not being described as a human being, but the Creator God of Hinduism.

That is what the scrolls are telling us. Are the scrolls right? Is Brahma the Creator God? Does Brahma exist because this is described in ancient scrolls?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle legend is the only one for which there is credible evidence.

The Iliad IS evidence for these, or some of these.

But it's mostly not very good evidence, because all we have is this ONE SOURCE ONLY for these, and it's better to have more than only one source; but also, Homer wrote his accounts at least 400 years after the events happened, making them much less reliable as a source, especially for miracle claims.

Whereas we have 4 (5) sources for the miracles of Jesus, and these are dated from 30-70 years from the reputed events. So they are much stronger evidence for the events than Homer is for the Trojan War.

But even so there is no reason to reject Homer as evidence for some of the events and characters. Some of them were probably real historical figures to which he added his fiction details.

And the gospel accounts also probably added fictional elements to the real events. This does not discredit the factual part which constituted the original true story to which some later legend was added.

The question is: What was the original true account, or basic events in about 30 AD, to which some later fiction may have been added? The best answer is that Jesus really did demonstrate power such as we see with the miracle healing events. This explains why the later legend developed. Without this miracle element, it is impossible to explain how he became mythologized into a god in such a short time and how the accounts became published and copied and circulated.

NO!

There is one source for the "Jesus Miracles" - a religious tract from one religious culture, the Bible.

No, "The Bible" (New Testament) did not exist in the 1st & 2nd centuries. It was compiled from several separate sources. These different documents from different writers did not suddenly become "one source" just because the Church put them together into one collection in the 4th century. (There were 2 or 3 other earlier collections too, but no "Bible" or "New Testament" collection.)

The Talmud would be an analogy to this -- this is clearly a collection of separate sources, even though they are collected into one set of writings. An encyclopedia is analogous. A collection of all the Patristic writings is not itself "the source" for each of the claims made, but rather each individual author is the source for his individual content.

This is also the case for the Vedas, which are from many different sources, but it is not true for the Book of Mormon or for the Koran, which are each from one source only.

If you count multiple references from the same small cultural group to some event then there are thousands . . .

But the 1st-century Christ sects were not one "same small cultural group." The ones which knew of others generally had major conflicts with those others.

. . . thousands of references to acts of the ancient Greek gods in Greek literature.

But there are no sources anytime close to when the alleged events happened (if they happened). If they happened (probably some of them did), it was many centuries earlier, and in some cases thousands of years.

The 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracles are the 4 gospels and Paul epistles (for the resurrection event only), which are dated from about 30-70 years after the events reportedly happened. But if you go farther, centuries later, there are thousands of "sources" for these events. But the word "source" loses its meaning if you extend it farther and farther. So admittedly it's arbitrary where the line is drawn.

But for the miracles of Prometheus and Jupiter and Apollo and Hercules, etc., there really are no "sources" at all, which have credibility for the alleged events. 1000+ years later is too late to call it a "source" for the events. (Homer and Hesiod are "sources" for the pagan myths, but not credible sources for the actual events, if they happened.)

For some other 1st-century alleged miracle-workers, other than Jesus, we have 1 or 2 or 3 "sources" which are dated 100 years or longer after the events allegedly happened. So it's these which are intended as the comparison to the "4 (5) sources" for the Jesus miracle events. Also for St. Genevieve there is ONLY ONE source, and for Mohammed, there is at least one source after about 200 years later than the events allegedly happened.

There are some "miracles" in Herodotus for which there is only this one source. Also for the reported Vespasian miracle there are 2 sources, from about 60 years after the reported event. But forget the pagan miracle myths -- there is no credible "source" for these.

And in his City of God, St. Augustine rattles off a long list of miracles he claimed some proximity to, but he's the only source.

Do you claim this is good evidence of their veracity?

Centuries later? even thousands of years later? No, the "source" has to be reasonably close to the alleged events. Maybe 100 years. Certainly less than 200 years. For some cases there is a "source" this close, but ONLY ONE source. E.g., for Apollonius of Tyana there is one source about 150 years later. For Simon Magus there are maybe 2 or 3 sources about 100-150 years later.

How about the tens or hundreds of thousands of texts relating acts of their gods in Hindu cultural literature? Are these good evidence?

No, again, they are generally THOUSANDS of years later than the alleged events happened.

That this is all you can offer for comparison just makes the point that the Jesus miracle events stand out uniquely from all the ancient miracle legends as the only case for which there is credible evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

But also, they are evidence for possible historical figures like Krishna more than for abstract entities like the above.

Possible historical figures are not necessarily actual historical figures. There may not enough evidence to determine whether they are, or not.

Also, Brahma is not being described as a human being, but the Creator God of Hinduism.

That is what the scrolls are telling us. Are the scrolls right? Is Brahma the Creator God? Does Brahma exist because this is described in ancient scrolls?

And there are seven authoritative books describing the magical feats of Harry Potter. Jesus only has the four chapters (gospels) in only one book describing his magical feats. Certainly by Lumpy's reasoning, this would mean that there is much more "evidence" for the existence and miraculous powers of Harry Potter than there is for Jesus.

 

[skepticalbip]

NO!

There is one source for the "Jesus Miracles" - a religious tract from one religious culture, the Bible.

No, "The Bible" (New Testament) did not exist in the 1st & 2nd centuries. It was compiled from several separate sources. These different documents from different writers did not suddenly become "one source" just because the Church put them together into one collection in the 4th century. (There were 2 or 3 other earlier collections too, but no "Bible" or "New Testament" collection.)

The Talmud would be an analogy to this -- this is clearly a collection of separate sources, even though they are collected into one set of writings. An encyclopedia is analogous. A collection of all the Patristic writings is not itself "the source" for each of the claims made, but rather each individual author is the source for his individual content.

This is also the case for the Vedas, which are from many different sources, but it is not true for the Book of Mormon or for the Koran, which are each from one source only.

If you count multiple references from the same small cultural group to some event then there are thousands . . .

But the 1st-century Christ sects were not one "same small cultural group." The ones which knew of others generally had major conflicts with those others.

. . . thousands of references to acts of the ancient Greek gods in Greek literature.

But there are no sources anytime close to when the alleged events happened (if they happened). If they happened (probably some of them did), it was many centuries earlier, and in some cases thousands of years.

The 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracles are the 4 gospels and Paul epistles (for the resurrection event only), which are dated from about 30-70 years after the events reportedly happened. But if you go farther, centuries later, there are thousands of "sources" for these events. But the word "source" loses its meaning if you extend it farther and farther. So admittedly it's arbitrary where the line is drawn.

But for the miracles of Prometheus and Jupiter and Apollo and Hercules, etc., there really are no "sources" at all, which have credibility for the alleged events. 1000+ years later is too late to call it a "source" for the events. (Homer and Hesiod are "sources" for the pagan myths, but not credible sources for the actual events, if they happened.)

For some other 1st-century alleged miracle-workers, other than Jesus, we have 1 or 2 or 3 "sources" which are dated 100 years or longer after the events allegedly happened. So it's these which are intended as the comparison to the "4 (5) sources" for the Jesus miracle events. Also for St. Genevieve there is ONLY ONE source, and for Mohammed, there is at least one source after about 200 years later than the events allegedly happened.

There are some "miracles" in Herodotus for which there is only this one source. Also for the reported Vespasian miracle there are 2 sources, from about 60 years after the reported event. But forget the pagan miracle myths -- there is no credible "source" for these.

And in his City of God, St. Augustine rattles off a long list of miracles he claimed some proximity to, but he's the only source.

Do you claim this is good evidence of their veracity?

Centuries later? even thousands of years later? No, the "source" has to be reasonably close to the alleged events. Maybe 100 years. Certainly less than 200 years. For some cases there is a "source" this close, but ONLY ONE source. E.g., for Apollonius of Tyana there is one source about 150 years later. For Simon Magus there are maybe 2 or 3 sources about 100-150 years later.

How about the tens or hundreds of thousands of texts relating acts of their gods in Hindu cultural literature? Are these good evidence?

No, again, they are generally THOUSANDS of years later than the alleged events happened.

That this is all you can offer for comparison just makes the point that the Jesus miracle events stand out uniquely from all the ancient miracle legends as the only case for which there is credible evidence.

As usual, you completely miss the point. What the members of a religious cult say about their religious icon is completely meaningless unless it is supported by evidence from outside the cult.

You understand this about other religions but not your own. This is why you can see the absurdity of religious claims from cults other than your own. However when it comes to your cult, you apply your blinders and accept the absurdity as true.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But also, they are evidence for possible historical figures like Krishna more than for abstract entities like the above.

Possible historical figures are not necessarily actual historical figures. There may not enough evidence to determine whether they are, or not.

Also, Brahma is not being described as a human being, but the Creator God of Hinduism.

That is what the scrolls are telling us. Are the scrolls right? Is Brahma the Creator God? Does Brahma exist because this is described in ancient scrolls?

Scrolls carbon-dated to 4 billion years ago? I don't see why not.

 

[DBT]

Possible historical figures are not necessarily actual historical figures. There may not enough evidence to determine whether they are, or not.

Also, Brahma is not being described as a human being, but the Creator God of Hinduism.

That is what the scrolls are telling us. Are the scrolls right? Is Brahma the Creator God? Does Brahma exist because this is described in ancient scrolls?

Only if the scrolls are stamped with Sri Quackananda's special Seal of Authenticity.

So you are saying that one set of scrolls describing supernatural entities are plausible, the books of the bible, but reject another set of scrolls, the writings of a different culture and different beliefs, the Gita, Upanishads, describing a different set of supernatural entities, as quack?

Why?

 

[Atheos]

Only if the scrolls are stamped with Sri Quackananda's special Seal of Authenticity.

So you are saying that one set of scrolls describing supernatural entities are plausible, the books of the bible, but reject another set of scrolls, the writings of a different culture and different beliefs, the Gita, Upanishads, describing a different set of supernatural entities, as quack?

Why?

I think Lumpenproletariat was trying to be funny, but it does bring up an excellent point. The buybull isn't stamped with any divine seal of approval either, which is sort of the point. Written by people to control other people. That is the nature of all religious writings that include commandments. Everything else is window dressing. No further explanation is necessary.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All the scrolls are evidence for events which happened near to the time the scrolls were written.

So you are saying that one set of scrolls describing supernatural entities are plausible, the books of the bible, but reject another set of scrolls, the writings of a different culture and different beliefs, the Gita, Upanishads, describing a different set of supernatural entities, as quack?

Why?

No. The scrolls about what Brahma did 4 billion years ago are credible as long as they have been carbon-dated that far back. We need a source near to the time that the miracle event happened.

So you're talking about scrolls written 4 billion years ago?

When are you going to get serious?

I've made this point enough times that you should have been able to figure it out by now.

 

[Atheos]

So you are saying that one set of scrolls describing supernatural entities are plausible, the books of the bible, but reject another set of scrolls, the writings of a different culture and different beliefs, the Gita, Upanishads, describing a different set of supernatural entities, as quack?

Why?

No. The scrolls about what Brahma did 4 billion years ago are credible as long as they have been carbon-dated that far back. We need a source near to the time that the miracle event happened.

So you're talking about scrolls written 4 billion years ago?

When are you going to get serious?

I've made this point enough times that you should have been able to figure it out by now.

So since there aren't any scrolls dated 4 billion years ago about Yahweh creating the earth we can ignore all that as well I take it. And since we have no scrolls dated within 2000 years of Noah's flood that's out the window. Ditto the Tower of Babel, the Abraham myths, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, since there are no scrolls dated within 1500 to 600 years of those events. And since we don't have any scrolls dated within 200 years of the time Jesus allegedly did his song and dance we can toss that out as well. Oh, but wait a second. I'm sure there is a Lumpenproletariat-approved time frame for accepting such scrolls that place things just inside a 210 year threshold as safe to accept. Behold the magic appearing bulls-eye.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So since there aren't any scrolls dated 4 billion years ago about Yahweh creating the earth we can ignore all that as well I take it.

Lumpy would be okay with that.
He ONLY wants to believe in the healing miracles. That's his key to eternal life. He's quite willing to abandon the silly stories and fictions all around the miracle healing, including any instructions about how to live life, how to worship god, how to treat one's enemies...
He's stovepiping his faith to healing miracles = divine power = eternal life. Jettison the rest, he won't mind.

 

[James Brown]

It's interesting, isn't it? The same criteria that apologists insist that we all must accept in order to qualify the events of the Gospels then disqualify the rest of the Christian Bible from consideration.

But another one of the supposed proofs of the reliability of the Gospels is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

As in most things, we can't have it both ways.

 

[funinspace]

No. The scrolls about what Brahma did 4 billion years ago are credible as long as they have been carbon-dated that far back. We need a source near to the time that the miracle event happened.

So you're talking about scrolls written 4 billion years ago?

When are you going to get serious?

I've made this point enough times that you should have been able to figure it out by now.

So since there aren't any scrolls dated 4 billion years ago about Yahweh creating the earth we can ignore all that as well I take it. And since we have no scrolls dated within 2000 years of Noah's flood that's out the window. Ditto the Tower of Babel, the Abraham myths, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, since there are no scrolls dated within 1500 to 600 years of those events.

Well, Lumpy has agreed that most of those grand Yahweh miracles/magic tricks are roughly 98% made up. So I guess one just has to gerrymander the Gospels kind of like the below to make the hologram hold together, with discounting the birthing narratives; all the editorial added details that the Gospel composers provided to smooth out the miracle stories provided by the mythical “curious onlookers”, the times when the Gospels has Jesus giving credence to the Law of the Prophets, and recognizing Noah and Moses; the funky ending of Mark; and probably a dozen other things I’ve forgotten in this never ending thread.



We probably should create a list of all the Lumpian Bible textual discards, as it is probably quite expansive at this point....

 

[Keith&Co.]

We probably should create a list of all the Lumpian Bible textual discards, as it is probably quite expansive at this point....

Easier to list what he accepts as important.
1) There is a god
2) He's the god of Jesus
3) Jesus used that god's power to heal
4) Jesus is therefore the path to the afterlife he spoke of
5) You can't make this shit up unless you have a printing press

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Mark was written about 70 AD. But the earliest existing manuscript is 200-250 AD.

The earliest existing Homer manuscript is also from the 3rd century AD, about 1000 years after Homer wrote. Can we get this straight, about the difference between when it was first written and when our existing manuscripts/COPIES were written.

No. The scrolls about what Brahma did 4 billion years ago are credible as long as they have been carbon-dated that far back. We need a source near to the time that the miracle event happened.

So you're talking about scrolls written 4 billion years ago?

When are you going to get serious?

I've made this point enough times that you should have been able to figure it out by now.

So since there aren't any scrolls dated 4 billion years ago about Yahweh creating the earth we can ignore all that as well I take it. And since we have no scrolls dated within 2000 years of Noah's flood that's out the window. Ditto the Tower of Babel, the Abraham myths, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, since there are no scrolls dated within 1500 to 600 years of those events. And since we don't have any scrolls dated within 200 years of the time Jesus allegedly did his song and dance we can toss that out as well.

STOP IT! The DATING refers to when the original document was written, not when our present MANUSCRIPT/COPY was written which we have today in the museums.

(OK, I should not have said "carbon-dated" -- but that was not intended literally, but as humor, which obviously fell flat. It's not the date of today's surviving manuscript that's important, but the date of the original writing.)

There are no original manuscripts we have written by the hand of the original author.

I've made this point clear many times, and if you have not yet figured out this distinction, then you need to go back to the 2nd grade. You should have already understood this even before I ever mentioned it.

You don't understand?

You don't understand that there are NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, but only copies? Surely you must be aware of this.

When they say the gospels were written in 70 or 80 or 90 AD, or that Paul wrote in 50-60 AD, this does not mean the later manuscripts/COPIES which we now have. It means the original manuscript, or the ORIGINAL document written by that writer, by his physical hand, none of which manuscripts exist. They're all gone.

You must know this. You can't be so ignorant as to be unaware of this.

The original manuscripts for the Hindu characters like Krishna were written between 500 BC and 500 AD. But the current manuscripts/COPIES are much later. Homer was written around 700 BC, but the earliest surviving manuscripts/COPIES are a thousand years later or so.

Oh, but wait a second. I'm sure there is a Lumpenproletariat-approved time frame for accepting such scrolls that place things just inside a 210 year threshold as safe to accept.

Stop being silly.

Are you trying to fool someone reading these posts? You must know your "210" figure is irrelevant to any of this.

It does not matter when the current manuscripts/COPIES were written! What matters is when the original writing took place. The Paul epistles were written about 50-60 AD. But the manuscripts we have now, in the museums, are from 200-300 years later.

There are some New Testament manuscript fragments (copies) from the 2nd century -- those are the earliest actual existing manuscripts. But that's not the date of the original writing of the documents.

Behold the magic appearing bulls-eye.

Your "bulls-eye" and "sharpshooter" rhetoric is obviously just as thoughtless and devoid of substance as your above misunderstanding about the difference between original writings, written by the original author, and the later manuscripts/COPIES which have survived and are the only physical evidence we now have.

We don't have original writings for ANY of the ancient authors. They are all copies from much later, typically several centuries, even more than 1000 years later. But that does not prevent us from dating the original writing, by the author, i.e., to a good approximation of that date.

And for that, the miracles of Jesus are recorded, written down for us, during the period of 55-100 AD, or about 25-70 years from when the events reportedly happened.

But for the "Creation" event, there are no writings to be taken seriously (4 billion or so years ago), and for Krishna the earliest writings are at least 1000 years after the events, and likely much later.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Applying the rules of evidence equally to all miracle claims, the Jesus miracle legend is the only one for which there is credible evidence.

As usual, you completely miss the point. What the members of a religious cult say about their religious icon is completely meaningless unless it is supported by evidence from outside the cult.

No, that's not correct. And your phrase "evidence from outside the cult" is meaningless.

The evidence we should be suspicious of is the miracle claim which originates from the direct disciple of the guru, or directly from the guru himself. We need some indication that some of the miracle claims originate from someone other than the guru himself or his direct disciples who were influenced by his charisma over a long period.

You understand this about other religions but not your own.

We should be suspicious of ALL miracle claims which originate from the direct disciples of the miracle-worker. No matter which religion or cult it is. The vast majority of Christian miracle claims over the centuries, of someone being healed by prayer or by a healer/evangelist, are probably false, because it's only the direct disciples of the healer who make these claims, after they were impacted by his charisma over a long period.

This is why you can see the absurdity of religious claims from cults other than your own. However when it comes to your cult, you apply your blinders and accept the absurdity as true.

Which "absurdity" do you mean?

If the miracle claims originate from the preacher's flock only, who had been influenced by the preacher's charisma for years and claim that his praying healed them, those claims are probably false. That rule applies evenhandedly to all the miracle cults and religions everywhere throughout all time and throughout the universe.

This means there's no evidence for believing the miracle claims, but it does not mean there have been no miracles at all.

Also, there are some cases for which there is evidence of some limited miracle power. E.g., Rasputin the mad monk probably had power to heal one child. There is evidence for this case which originated from his antagonists and not from any disciples of his.