120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[none]

no really, a zombie flew..

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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too, and twisting it into (in effect) "if you doubt the miracles described in this document then you doubt it as an historical document and that means you must doubt all historical documents".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!

And they're expecting me to believe that someone could feed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. That's not how math works. Sorry. Apparently, I'm going to be punished for eternity because I don't believe 2+2=5. For that matter, all of the animals couldn't fit on the Ark. That's not how math works.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here, take it from Lawrence Krauss;

 

[DBT]

Doesn't work in the real world of physical objects.....

 

[Lion IRC]

Real physical objects? LOL
So Newtonian.
So last century.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Real physical objects? LOL
So Newtonian.
So last century.

Yes, I'm sure if you talk with any quantum physicist, they will tell you that someone could feed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. Quantum physics isn't magic.

 

[DBT]

Real physical objects? LOL
So Newtonian.
So last century.

So you have verifiable examples of objects magically multiplying? Just one example will do.

 

[Learner]

Yes, I'm sure if you talk with any quantum physicist, they will tell you that someone could feed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. Quantum physics isn't magic.

It could be that If you kept looking into the baskets each time. There would be loaves of bread and fish. I think this was the influence for "looking in the box" as known by scrodingers cat . God blessed and quantum physic'd enough to go around.

 

[DBT]

Quantum physics breaks down above Compton scale, so we have physics of scale. Fish don't come in superposition or in both wave and particle form, they are individual fish and individual loaves.

 

[Learner]

God did it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think this was the influence for "looking in the box" as known by scrodingers cat .

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
There's never been uncertainty about the contents of a cornucopia, Learner. It's full. It's always full, no matter how much you pour out of it. There will be enough, plenty and more.

Nothing in the thought experiment suggests an infinite number of cats or poisons or particles.

This attempt to shoehorn your faith into what you understand of scientific theory is like telling blonde joke that turns into a knock-knock joke halfway through. It's just embarrassing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Real physical objects? LOL
So Newtonian.
So last century.

So you have verifiable examples of objects magically multiplying? Just one example will do.

Yes. See Genesis 1:1.
Or as some ppl call it, the big bang / singularity.

Mr 2+2=5, Lawrence Krauss, doesnt seem to have any problem with universes appearing out of nothing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you have verifiable examples of objects magically multiplying? Just one example will do.

Yes. See Genesis 1:1.
Or as some ppl call it, the big bang / singularity.

Mr 2+2=5, Lawrence Krauss, doesnt seem to have any problem with universes appearing out of nothing.

View attachment 11382

What came first? The nothing, or the nothing that created the nothing from nothing?

Inquiring minds want to know... Semantics can be fun.

What is more? One nothing or two nothings?

Two nothings plus two nothings equals five nothings. Prove me wrong.

 

[Lion IRC]

DBT asked for magic.

 

[DBT]

DBT asked for magic.

Quantum fluctuations are not magic. The 'universe from nothing' model is but one idea and not something that is being claimed to be an established fact. But given what is understood about QM, it is far more likely than a Cosmic Man/God who created the Universe.

 

[Lion IRC]

And Genesis 1:1 is not magic.

 

[abaddon]

So you have verifiable examples of objects magically multiplying?

Yes. See Genesis 1:1.

And Genesis 1:1 is not magic.

It's magic. Then it's not magic. Which is it?

Keep in mind that magic means "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". Which makes anything God does (that you cannot, because the character of his actions are "supernatural", describe the mechanics of) into magic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's magic. Then it's not magic. Which is it? .

The creationist argument rests heavily on the big complicated universe we see which they insist could not occur naturally without someone intentionally making it. So, incredulity argument.

The science that they appeal to to support their incredulity, pretending that the better science gets, the more it resembles their superstition, is busy saying that this is how the universe works naturally, without any need to appeal to an intelligence behind it.

So, they try to shoehorn a credible story into their incredible fantasy and pretend the two things overlap when they're really diametrically opposed.

So, it's magic except when it's not magic, but ultimately it is magic, when you look at it right, but not when you do the math...
So it's pretty much just bullshit.

 

[Lion IRC]

...It's magic. Then it's not magic. Which is it?

Ask DBT
If universes appearing out of nothing is magic according to DBT (and Lawrence Krauss) then Genesis 1:1 and/or the Big Bang is magic.
But don't label Krauss' theory science and Genesis 1:1 magic.

They are either both magic or neither.

 

[Learner]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
There's never been uncertainty about the contents of a cornucopia, Learner. It's full. It's always full, no matter how much you pour out of it. There will be enough, plenty and more.

Nothing in the thought experiment suggests an infinite number of cats or poisons or particles.

This attempt to shoehorn your faith into what you understand of scientific theory is like telling blonde joke that turns into a knock-knock joke halfway through. It's just embarrassing.

Punch lines or precised theory wasn't the intention, just a waffle of humour like the humour of magic.