120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Learner]

Apologies Lion I was referring to understanding what he mean't after misunderstanding few previous posts.

 

[none]

Ok I get you.

I don't get it.

Would gravity still exist as a force if there were no 'law' of gravity?

the force would exist but it wouldn't be called gravity, it might not be called anything for millions of years
i'm using what has happened as a predictor of what could happen

Would there just be forces all jumbled together with no ability to tell one from another?

apparently not

Why would we even call something a 'force' if we had no (pattern-seeking) ability to tell one force from another?

if we didn't have a pattern seeking ability capable of identifying forces we wouldn't call them anything
this is my guess

 

[Horatio Parker]

The nutshell argument I like is

structure implies order implies design implies designer.

But the catch is, this is a process of the human mind. Intuitively we sense a unity to the universe. In the mind.

So if you trust your intuition over empirical evidence, you should be at least aware of that.

I think a believers insistence on things like creationism is essentially an admission that science is the true religion. So the religious who depend on revelatory texts have no choice but to argue that their traditional revelations are science. This is more to the advantage of religious institutions rather than members who are left confusing apologetics with spirituality.

I'm sure theres some of that but you can also see a mechanical universe. Machines we build abide by the same aptly named "laws" in the same way. Which is more than just the structure element. (not derailing here) Staying on topic.

Some of what? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

My argument incorporates observing the structure or mechanics of the universe. I don't know why you think repeating it is a refutation.

 

[Learner]

Some of what? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

My argument incorporates observing the structure or mechanics of the universe. I don't know why you think repeating it is a refutation.

Ok so you include the mechanics of the universe. I misunderstood.

Is the empirical evidence you are referring to; the mechanics and structure of the universe itself ? or A result of a particular study of the religious tending to use their intution describing or explaining the mechanics of the universe? Im not sure of the previous post.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Would gravity still exist as a force if there were no 'law' of gravity?

Of course it would. the so-called "law" of gravity is only our description of what the gravitational force does. That's like asking if Australia existed before Europeans discovered Australia.

Would there just be forces all jumbled together with no ability to tell one from another?

From a human point of view, maybe. But the natural forces would do what the natural forces always did, whether we could tell one from the other or not. In fact, they did just that, for millenia, or millions of millenia, before we worked out which was which and what each one was and did. The natural forces give as much of a shit what we think about them as we do about what some little ant colony thinks about us. Less, even, because ants might be capable of some level of thought, however much beneath human thought that is. Natural forces don't think.

Why would we even call something a 'force' if we had no (pattern-seeking) ability to tell one force from another?

This is a non-question, as pattern-seeking has, as far as anybody can tell, always been a part of the human psyche. It's like asking "how would we be human if we weren't human".

 

[Lion IRC]

Schrodinger's Outlaw said..."if there were no laws, forces and such would still exist".
But surely that is exactly the same sort of tautology.

Gravity does exist and it is a law.
So stating that if there were no laws of physics there would still be physics seems redundant.

Let's not get into word games here. Pattern seeking is not some primitive human trait which limits our thinking. It's what enables us to identify the difference between order and chaos. Between design and chance.

Between this;



And this;

 

[none]

Schrodinger's Outlaw said..."if there were no laws, forces and such would still exist".
But surely that is exactly the same sort of tautology.

Gravity does exist and it is a law.
So stating that if there were no laws of physics there would still be physics seems redundant.

having no concept of physics doesn't mean that the earth and moon are not affected by the sun's gravity.
there is evidence this relationship existed before humans identified gravity as a phenomenon

Let's not get into word games here.

ok, you first.

Pattern seeking is not some primitive human trait which limits our thinking.

then don't treat it as one.

It's what enables us to identify the difference between order and chaos.

subjective nonetheless

Between design and chance.

and subjective nonetheless

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Schrodinger's Outlaw said..."if there were no laws, forces and such would still exist".
But surely that is exactly the same sort of tautology.

No. of course it's not. It's simply saying "if nobody described the natural forces, there would still be natural forces". The "laws" are simply our description of the natural forces.

Gravity does exist and it is a law.

Yes it does, and no it isn't. Gravity is a natural force which does what it does, independent of whether anybody calls it a law or not. It isn't a law, though, because the "law" of gravity is simply our description of what the gravitational force does, independent of our description of it. Seriously, you don't see the difference?

So stating that if there were no laws of physics there would still be physics seems redundant.

The so-called "laws" of physics are merely descriptions of what the natural forces at work in the world - and to a certain extent, in the wider cosmos - will do. They describe the effect that will be produced between body x and substance y in condition z, for example. They are not prescriptive "laws" as in "thou shalt not", but descriptive as in "if this force acts on this mass, that will happen" . Not only do I think that should be obvious to any discerning intellect, but I think that's been pointed out to you before, so you have no excuse for being so stupid as to confuse the two.

Let's not get into word games here. Pattern seeking is not some primitive human trait which limits our thinking. It's what enables us to identify the difference between order and chaos. Between design and chance.

Pattern seeking is what allows us to discern images in the clouds , or in a taco or a slice of toast, or wherever we've found images that resemble whatever we seek in them. It's called paredoilia, you should check it out sometime.

As for your examples, yes, obviously one is a natural formation in the sands, and the other is a sculpture made by human hands. And? Show me an example of the second one formed by purely natural forces and we can discuss how it could have come about. Until then, all you're saying is, sand makes shapes, and people make shapes in sand. So what?

 

[DBT]

Schrodinger's Outlaw said..."if there were no laws, forces and such would still exist".
But surely that is exactly the same sort of tautology.

Gravity does exist and it is a law.
So stating that if there were no laws of physics there would still be physics seems redundant.

Let's not get into word games here. Pattern seeking is not some primitive human trait which limits our thinking. It's what enables us to identify the difference between order and chaos. Between design and chance.

Between this;

View attachment 8744

And this;

View attachment 8745

The former being obviously a part of physical natural processes, the latter clearly designed and formed by human hands. The evidence for natural biological evolution relating to the existence of living things in countless forms does not not necessarily point to a Designer/Creator.

 

[James Brown]

What if I used power tools and a kick-ass leaf blower to shape a sand dune that was indistinguishable from the one in the top picture?

If, for example, a man was to design an object which looked like a natural rock in
every respect, then, while this object would in fact be the product of design, another person could
not tell this from merely examining the rock. As far as he is concerned, this rock is a product of
nature. The closer the resemblance between a designed artifact and a natural object, the more
difficult it is to determine that the artifact is in fact a product of design....

Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be
demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish
between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to
the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim
that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between
artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it
is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step
beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature
is the result of conscious planning.

To repeat: unless the theist first proves the existence of a god, there is no way, in principle, by
which he can demonstrate that the universe exhibits design. Knowledge of god must precede
knowledge of natural design, so the design argument has no possibility of success....

--George H. Smith, Atheism, The Case Against God

 

[Learner]

If, for example, a man was to design an object which looked like a natural rock in
every respect, then, while this object would in fact be the product of design, another person could not tell this from merely examining the rock. As far as he is concerned, this rock is a product of nature. The closer the resemblance between a designed artifact and a natural object, the more difficult it is to determine that the artifact is in fact a product of design....

You'd have to ask yourself seriously... when they're looking for design ;are they seriously looking for designs "resembling those made by humanbeings"? like the examples of the watch.

Quite a few creatures will tell the difference easily between the real and fake rock by sight, sound, smell,touch,and so forth . The real rock may be the equivalent to the Grand Hotel to tiny creatures ,insects or organic spores to live and grow on the various surfaces, not forgetting creatures burrowing underneath the rock making their homes there. It may not look like a design to humans but it is most "multifunctional" for merely being a rock ..in which all these various creatures would feel this a home suitably designed for them.

Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be
demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics.

Again here ..It seems he is comparing natural objects (which we ourselves emulate at times) to human designs that would ONLY matter and be recognised to humanbeings. Our designs stick out. The idea that design must be like the designs of humans is a great error.

Why can't natural law be a design itself? Atheists claim "natural law" as their own, erroneously assuming to use this idea as the benchmark to dismiss intelligent design?

Therefore, to claim
that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself.
Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.
To repeat: unless the theist first proves the existence of a god, there is no way, in principle, by which he can demonstrate that the universe exhibits design. Knowledge of god must precede knowledge of natural design, so the design argument has no possibility of success....

--George H. Smith, Atheism, The Case Against God

If no one knows why natural law is what it is, then G.S. wouldn't really have a ruler to set against when looking for design in nature. I'm sure believers would propose the very signs of design may well be the "laws" itself .

 

[none]

You'd have to ask yourself seriously... when they're looking for design ;are they seriously looking for designs "resembling those made by humanbeings"? like the examples of the watch.

not sure what you are talking about here^
if you aren't sure something was designed you just don't assume it is designed

Quite a few creatures will tell the difference easily between the real and fake rock by sight, sound, smell,touch,and so forth . The rock may be the equivalent to the Grand Hotel to tiny creatures ,insects or organic spores to live and grow on the various surfaces, not forgetting creatures burrowing underneath the rock making their homes there. It may not look like a design to humans but it is most "multifunctional" for merely being a rock ..in which all these various creatures would feel this a home suitably designed for them.

creatures find it is suitable and live there, they make it their home but knowing it is designed seems to be uniquely human

Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be
demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics.

nature doesn't provide the basis for which to compare, we do
designed things are the basis of design

Again here ..It seems he is comparing natural objects (which we ourselves emulate at times) to human designs that would ONLY matter and be recognised to humanbeings. Our designs stick out.

who else besides humans can determine design?

The idea that design must be like the designs of humans is a great error.

yeah because of spider webs

Why can't natural law be a design itself? Atheists claim "natural law" as their own, erroneously assuming to use this idea as the benchmark to dismiss intelligent design?

you really conflating a few issues here^
your conflating natural law with a force or matter, it isn't
if someone is using natural law they aren't using the laws of physics
intelligent design is dismissed because a lack of evidence

If no one knows why natural law is what it is, then G.S. wouldn't really have a ruler to set against when looking for design in nature. I'm sure believers would propose the very signs of design may well be the "laws" itself .

my understanding of natural law is that it is misinformation and propaganda.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem with intelligent design is, it is argument from ignorance and intelligent designer of the gaps. It is impossible, even in principle to prove that any given biological feature cannot have evolved.
The idea that a given feature is irreducible cannot be proven. The fact we may never know exactly how a feature evolved, due to the fact not all such evolved features leave fossils or evidence does not negate the fact we know a lot of features did evolve slowly evidenced by fossils. We know evolution exists and works. Trying to stick God into a gap in knowledge is simply ridiculous.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Some of what? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

My argument incorporates observing the structure or mechanics of the universe. I don't know why you think repeating it is a refutation.

Ok so you include the mechanics of the universe. I misunderstood.

Is the empirical evidence you are referring to; the mechanics and structure of the universe itself ? or A result of a particular study of the religious tending to use their intution describing or explaining the mechanics of the universe? Im not sure of the previous post.

Our knowledge of the physical world is empirical. Our knowledge of God is intuitive. The only arguments for a supernatural being God are intuitive. There are no empirical arguments for God.

Those who confuse the two are, obviously, themselves confused.

I'd argue that belief in a supernatural realm of angels, miracles etc. does nothing to advance a person's spirituality. Especially if one held that, without a historical, man-god Jesus, there can be no Christianity. Understanding them metaphorically, however can lead to insight. This is why believers gain benefit even while they insist on the supernatural. But they'd be better off with a clearer understanding.

That argument, that without historical human man-god Jesus there is no church, has nothing to do with reason, insight, meditation, contemplation or any other spiritual act that people generally consider beneficial.

 

[DBT]

If no one knows why natural law is what it is, then G.S. wouldn't really have a ruler to set against when looking for design in nature. I'm sure believers would propose the very signs of design may well be the "laws" itself .

I'm sure they do. But it's an error to believe: 'we don't know, therefore god''

 

[Smoker]

It would be very helpful to me if God would just explain clearly which branch of Jesus worship is the correct one, or which branch of Islam is the correct one. The least He could do is get off his throne and come down here to help settle the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants, since they have been killing each other in God's name for hundreds of years.

It is very simple. When there are conflicts with the varying versions of Christianity you go to the source. The early Christianity , well demonstrated in your diagram. It is probable that there is the main core amongst a lot of the denominations and that is the teachings of Jesus .

Because ..The teachings of Jesus is "uncorruptable"!!, as it was like for the early Christians because it was so easy to "memorize" amongst a great mass of people and the most easiest in oral traditions especially those that couldn't read.You'd have a seriously hard time to change Jesus's gospel. This is the beauty of Jesus and his teachings! The only way to discredit Jesus is to deny he has ever existed!. I've seen and heard many Christians talk and make videos about it by what they now research "themselves" which is a good thing for their understanding of the faith.

If you study that Bible like a religious fanatic, trying to understand every word, then you will see too many words and phrases that contradict each other, and other verses that go against the observable facts of our universe that most scientists agree on. You might also see that this god of the Bible says it will tortured people who don't agree with It's divine opinion for eternity in an eternal lake of fire.

This is the main reason I would like to spit on this god and his father, because they seem to be perfectly fine with eternal torture. That is probably the most evil idea I have ever heard in my life, but somehow people think it is ok. It boggles the mind. If any character in any movie or book tortured people just for fun, or no good reason, all of us would be able to see that it's actions were evil and not worthy or emulation. But when the Christian God says it will torture unbelievers in the eternal lake of fire, some of you just accept it as moral?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To be fair to God, though, eternity is a really long time and if he just decides to torture people forever, he doesn't need to remember to get up off the couch and re-judge people every fucking billion years - which would do nothing but interrupt his nap.

 

[Atheos]

It would be very helpful to me if God would just explain clearly which branch of Jesus worship is the correct one, or which branch of Islam is the correct one. The least He could do is get off his throne and come down here to help settle the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants, since they have been killing each other in God's name for hundreds of years.

It is very simple. When there are conflicts with the varying versions of Christianity you go to the source. The early Christianity , well demonstrated in your diagram. It is probable that there is the main core amongst a lot of the denominations and that is the teachings of Jesus .

Because ..The teachings of Jesus is "uncorruptable"!!, as it was like for the early Christians because it was so easy to "memorize" amongst a great mass of people and the most easiest in oral traditions especially those that couldn't read.You'd have a seriously hard time to change Jesus's gospel. This is the beauty of Jesus and his teachings! The only way to discredit Jesus is to deny he has ever existed!. I've seen and heard many Christians talk and make videos about it by what they now research "themselves" which is a good thing for their understanding of the faith.

What you suggest here is directly contradicted not only by the historical record but also by the very bible itself. First of all the first part of the graph (which you call the source/core) cannot be demonstrated to exist. The historical record indicates that for as far back as we have evidence Christianity was characterized by significant sectarian differences. The closest one might come to a core would be if one were to summarily judge that the authentic Pauline Epistles were that core. The problem with doing so is that it subverts your entire argument. Paul never even claimed to have met Jesus and nowhere does Paul ever refer to any "teachings of Jesus." It's a bit laughable when you say "You'd have a seriously hard time to change Jesus's gospel" when from his very earliest epistles Paul was berating the Galatians for this very thing:

Gal 1:6

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel

Nobody ever even bothered writing down the sayings of Jesus for many decades after he supposedly lived (and yes, I'm not completely convinced Jesus was an historical character although I think he probably was).

We have ample evidence that for many decades (centuries even) people were putting words into the mouth of this Jesus character, so much so that eventually the Nicean Council tried to put a stop to it in 325 by adopting their official creed. Heck, even today people continue to put words into Jesus' mouth.

Trying to find this "core" of which you speak is a fool's errand.

 

[Learner]

What you suggest here is directly contradicted not only by the historical record but also by the very bible itself. First of all the first part of the graph (which you call the source/core) cannot be demonstrated to exist. The historical record indicates that for as far back as we have evidence Christianity was characterized by significant sectarian differences. The closest one might come to a core would be if one were to summarily judge that the authentic Pauline Epistles were that core. The problem with doing so is that it subverts your entire argument. Paul never even claimed to have met Jesus and nowhere does Paul ever refer to any "teachings of Jesus." It's a bit laughable when you say "You'd have a seriously hard time to change Jesus's gospel" when from his very earliest epistles Paul was berating the Galatians for this very thing:

The core is every denomination having Jesus and his word(s) as gospel. How one follows is another matter. No contradictions at all unless... Paul has helped spread Christianity considerably but "why" you chose him for this particular argument ,I'm not sure. Christians are already aware of some of Pauls contradictions to Jesus himself.


Paul says:
Rom.13 [12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand.

Jesus says:
Luke.21 [8] Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,
saying, . . . `The time is at hand!' Do not go after them.

Paul says:
Eph.1 [7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
Rom.4 [25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Jesus says:
Matt.6 [14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Gal 1:6

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel

Nobody ever even bothered writing down the sayings of Jesus for many decades after he supposedly lived (and yes, I'm not completely convinced Jesus was an historical character although I think he probably was).

Its really quite simple to understand that teaching orally is the frist tradition by the times of the writings, a great number of people by then new the gospel of Jesus.

We have ample evidence that for many decades (centuries even) people were putting words into the mouth of this Jesus character, so much so that eventually the Nicean Council tried to put a stop to it in 325 by adopting their official creed. Heck, even today people continue to put words into Jesus' mouth.

Trying to find this "core" of which you speak is a fool's errand.

Well those that do today are easily discredited when comparing. I'd like to see some. But it has happened before. I guess one of the ways to tell is "what is known of Jesus" we can use Paul for the very example below and previous verses above. This is the core I speak of.


Paul says:
1Cor.12
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists,
some pastors and teachers,
1Tim.2
[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying),
a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2Tim.1
[11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

Jesus says:
Matt.23
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.

 

[Learner]

The problem with intelligent design is, it is argument from ignorance and intelligent designer of the gaps. It is impossible, even in principle to prove that any given biological feature cannot have evolved.
The idea that a given feature is irreducible cannot be proven. The fact we may never know exactly how a feature evolved, due to the fact not all such evolved features leave fossils or evidence does not negate the fact we know a lot of features did evolve slowly evidenced by fossils. We know evolution exists and works. Trying to stick God into a gap in knowledge is simply ridiculous.

I know this was how it used to be seen as the argument. Evolution doesn't really contradict Creation and so I don't think the debate ends there for creationists other than using the "god of the gaps".