120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did Jesus have to "beam down" only to Judea-Galilee and nowhere else?

Actually, Lumpy in the below (Readers Digest Condensed Version) post pretty much torched any connection to the Old Testament.

"connection"?

Have Jews "torched any connection" to the OT by forsaking the rituals of animal sacrifice which are central to the Mosaic Law?

How about this Old Testament "connection": the prophet Elisha summoned 2 she-bears out of the woods to rip apart 42 children who had mocked him for being bald-headed (II Kings 2:23-24), and yet Jews and Christians today do not apply this punishment to children who are disrespectful to bald-headed prophets. So have they "torched" the Old testament by not upholding this OT "connection"?

What are all the possible "connections" -- to this or that -- established as prerequisites to addressing the "Reasons to reject Christianity"?

Does the OP provide a list of all these required "connections" somewhere?

Lumpy seems to take the position that this Jesus is The God, making Lumpy more of a deist, but tied to the Jesus name for God.

To that particular person in 30 AD who did the miracle acts, yes. Not necessarily to the name per se, which was a common name in Judea-Galilee-Palestine. Isn't Christianity "tied to" that reputed founder of the Church (or the cults leading up to the Church) in the first century? Was there a qualifier in the OP disconnecting our topic from that 1st-century event, or that historical person? and saying "Jesus" and "God" should not appear together in the same phrase or sentence?

The Trinity, Yahweh, et al. are irrelevant.

You mean anything not mentioned explicitly is "irrelevant"? Are wars and famines irrelevant? It isn't necessary to enumerate all the things which might be relevant in order to make a point. That Jesus in 30 AD had power, which he showed, and is important does not imply that everything else is "irrelevant" because it's not mentioned. This one point does matter, that the Jesus person had power, but saying it does not then make everything else irrelevant.

If you want to emphasize the importance of something else, like Yahweh or the Trinity, then go ahead and explain its importance. There are many relevant matters I'm not mentioning, like global warming and so on. I'm not saying they are "irrelevant" by not mentioning them.

This Jesus God evidently chose to beam down to little old Judea to make its appearance to us earthlings. Evidently, it would be just as fine, if he were born son of Vishnu with of course his proof cum miracle healings.

Perhaps. You're saying it would have been wrong for him to have beamed down to India instead of Judea? I'm not saying where he should have beamed down to, but you seem to be saying it would have been inappropriate for him to beam down in the wrong place. How do you decide what is the right or wrong place for him to beam down to? Why are you making these dogmatic judgments about where the "Jesus God" should have beamed down to?

He had to be somewhere, didn't he? Can't we speak of someone and say he was important in some way without making a religion out of his location? Why is it necessary to insist that Jesus (or God) would have made a mistake to choose India as the location? Why couldn't that question be left unanswered, along with a few million other interesting questions?

If you're crusading for the superiority of Judea over India or Malaysia or Uzbekistan, as the location God must choose, you're free to expound on that and explain how God makes such choices. No doubt there are many theories about what God should choose, including choices more important than which location to "beam down" to. How many extended Walls of Text do you demand for taking account of all the possible choices God might make and explaining in each case why this choice had to be better than that one?

Which actually is kind of an interesting take on things theologically. I find it quite odd that he didn’t make this clear much earlier, like 2 years ago, . . .

It was made clear in my first and second posts, back on page one, when I refuted the first and second of the 120 (122) "Reasons." I referred there to the miracle acts of Jesus, in Judea/Galilee, in 30 AD, and why it's reasonable to believe these events happened.

. . . not that it makes his arguments any better. But it would allow ‘discussions’ to proceed with a little less confusion.

From the beginning it was clear that my discussion was about the event in about 30 AD, happening in Galilee-Judea, which event was essential to what "Christianity" is about. But my point does not include or exclude any requirement that it had to be at this location. I did speculate at least once about the possibility that it might have happened elsewhere, like India. So I don't rule out that possibility, but if someone else does rule it out and makes the Galilee-Judea location mandatory, it doesn't contradict my point.

So I'm not disagreeing with you that it was vitally important for God to choose Judea as the location. Maybe you're right that he had to choose that location. If there are reasons why he had to make that choice, you can give us those reasons. It's not my place to give reasons for your belief that God had to make a certain choice about something. Maybe God makes many choices without our knowing the reasons for them. But when you claim to know the reason for one of his choices, you can give it to us.

I'm sure (maybe just a basic instinct) that God does not ask us to believe anything irrational, i.e., something contradicted by reason or evidence or science. It's OK to "know" some of what God is thinking, or why he wants this or that, but there's probably much more that we don't know than what we know, and we could easily be mistaken in presuming to know what God thinks. But I'm quite certain of this one point, that he doesn't require us to believe anything irrational. But which geographical location he should choose at which to "beam down" to us is not something I feel certain about.

It really makes an even more muddled mess of notions of what is typically Christian heaven/hell theology, so . . .

Which "heaven/hell theology"? There are many of these.

What makes sense is to set aside the details of exactly what happens in heaven/hell, and seek the "eternal life" or "kingdom of God" he promised (hoping it's something good), and consider what he meant when he said "Your faith has saved you."

I’m not sure why he clings to the notion that one needs to grovel at the name of ‘Jesus’ to get the E-ticket to heaven (or possibly to avoid eternal torment).

His phrase "Your faith has saved you" says it better, less sloppily.

Though I think Lumpy has also waffled on whether he believes in internal torment, but I think he suggests even if it is only a permanent death, why not choose heaven.

I didn't deal with this interesting oddity early when replying to Lumpy novelette #3359, as I had bored of trying to filter thru the high SNR...

So then you prefer more noise and less signal?

How about the following:

 

[funinspace]

"connection"?

Have Jews "torched any connection" to the OT by forsaking the rituals of animal sacrifice which are central to the Mosaic Law?

How about this Old Testament "connection": the prophet Elisha summoned 2 she-bears out of the woods to rip apart 42 children who had mocked him for being bald-headed (II Kings 2:23-24), and yet Jews and Christians today do not apply this punishment to children who are disrespectful to bald-headed prophets. So have they "torched" the Old testament by not upholding this OT "connection"?

What are all the possible "connections" -- to this or that -- established as prerequisites to addressing the "Reasons to reject Christianity"?

Does the OP provide a list of all these required "connections" somewhere?




To that particular person in 30 AD who did the miracle acts, yes. Not necessarily to the name per se, which was a common name in Judea-Galilee-Palestine. Isn't Christianity "tied to" that reputed founder of the Church (or the cults leading up to the Church) in the first century? Was there a qualifier in the OP disconnecting our topic from that 1st-century event, or that historical person? and saying "Jesus" and "God" should not appear together in the same phrase or sentence?

The Trinity, Yahweh, et al. are irrelevant.

You mean anything not mentioned explicitly is "irrelevant"? Are wars and famines irrelevant? It isn't necessary to enumerate all the things which might be relevant in order to make a point. That Jesus in 30 AD had power, which he showed, and is important does not imply that everything else is "irrelevant" because it's not mentioned. This one point does matter, that the Jesus person had power, but saying it does not then make everything else irrelevant.

If you want to emphasize the importance of something else, like Yahweh or the Trinity, then go ahead and explain its importance. There are many relevant matters I'm not mentioning, like global warming and so on. I'm not saying they are "irrelevant" by not mentioning them.

I wasn't even trying to debate your notions in the post you quoted of me. I was trying to help others better recognize that you aren't defending the construct that is generally contained within the word "Christianity". You are trying to defend an odd Lumpy mono-Jesus-god that doesn't reflect the notions of any major Christian sect. I see no reason that this shouldn't be pointed out and be made clear ('clear' as in the dictionary sense verses the Lumpy definition).

This Jesus God evidently chose to beam down to little old Judea to make its appearance to us earthlings. Evidently, it would be just as fine, if he were born son of Vishnu with of course his proof cum miracle healings.

Perhaps. You're saying it would have been wrong for him to have beamed down to India instead of Judea? I'm not saying where he should have beamed down to, but you seem to be saying it would have been inappropriate for him to beam down in the wrong place. How do you decide what is the right or wrong place for him to beam down to? Why are you making these dogmatic judgments about where the "Jesus God" should have beamed down to?

He had to be somewhere, didn't he? Can't we speak of someone and say he was important in some way without making a religion out of his location? Why is it necessary to insist that Jesus (or God) would have made a mistake to choose India as the location? Why couldn't that question be left unanswered, along with a few million other interesting questions?

If you're crusading for the superiority of Judea over India or Malaysia or Uzbekistan, as the location God must choose, you're free to expound on that and explain how God makes such choices. No doubt there are many theories about what God should choose, including choices more important than which location to "beam down" to. How many extended Walls of Text do you demand for taking account of all the possible choices God might make and explaining in each case why this choice had to be better than that one?

I don't need to crusade for any god, as I don't think any are real. But when you rip Jesus out of any of the atypical Christian contexts to suite your own fantasies, I will point out why I think your ideas are not even up to half-baked when compared to any normative Christian theology.

Though I think Lumpy has also waffled on whether he believes in internal torment, but I think he suggests even if it is only a permanent death, why not choose heaven.

I didn't deal with this interesting oddity early when replying to Lumpy novelette #3359, as I had bored of trying to filter thru the high SNR...

So then you prefer more noise and less signal?

How about the following:

Well that probably takes you less time to post than your walls of word salad you usually barf out...but it appears to actually be less noise than your typical word wall salad, so thanks for the lesser amount of noise.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The first-century accounts of the MIRACLES OF JESUS are still the best explanation of what "Christianity" is about and . . .

. . . don't need to be replaced by more recent mystical hocus-pocus.

Though I think Lumpy has also waffled on whether he believes in internal torment, but I think he suggests even if it is only a permanent death, why not choose heaven.

That sounds right.

I do recall that he seems willing to jettison anything that's not a least-number-of-steps path to eternal life; he wants the carrot, you can say what you like about the stick, or the riding crop.

Christ belief does not have to be a program for regimenting humans toward desired social behavior, like an animal is manipulated toward the right or left or cattle are prodded to keep them from straying. Religion may often take this form, but there's no reason to assume Christ's program was to provide tools for herding humans like cattle.

But, if he'd made this all clear 2 years ago, there'd be no real reason to post it in a thread as a defense for Christainity.

On page 1, at the beginning, I showed reasons to believe, or not to "reject Christianity," and emphasized the "good news" about the possibility of eternal life, gained through faith. I.e., not "blind" faith, but belief based on evidence from history, especially the evidence of the miracle acts of Jesus, which I emphasized as central to Christ belief and legitimate to point out in a topic presuming to debunk all of Christianity.

All he really wants to defend are the Jesus Miracle Stories, and . . .

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility. And we have evidence that those events did happen.

. . . and a very self-serving view of how History works.

The correct view is that we know history from documents written at the time, e.g., 2000 years ago. Like we know of the Greeks and Romans and others, from the ancient written documents. And like we know of the Jesus miracle acts, from the evidence, like we know 99% of our ancient history from written documents of the time.

Your riddles about "how History works" say nothing to show that "History works" other than by relying on the ancient documents, like a Christ believer relies on the ancient documents for the evidence of the Jesus miracle power to give eternal life.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Someone let me know if Lumpy responds to a post within 30 days. I might be interested.

 

[Jobar]

Amazing the changes in appearance Jesus has gone through, over the ages.

Here's a 4th-century mosaic of Christ.


Here's a bust of the emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.


Here's Jesus in his 'good shepherd' guise.



However, for many centuries Apollo, son of Zeus, was also the god of shepherds.


In the time of the emperor Hadrian, his young male lover, Antinous, drowned in the Nile; it's thought he may have been a willing sacrifice in some ritual to extend the life and/or reign of Hadrian. Afterwards, the emperor declared Antinous a god, and his images were inscribed in many temples.


Here's a 6th/7th century Egyptian Coptic image of Christ.


In seventh century France, Christ looked remarkably like a Frankish warrior, complete with Woden's headdress.


Here's an image of Christ from 1520, by an Italian painter.


Coincidentally- or maybe not- here's a painting of Cesare Borgia, Pope's son and bad-guy extraordinaire, by the same painter.


It would be amusing to make a collection of Jesus images on things like nuts, toast, pizzas, wall paneling, or whatever, and compare to see how similar the features were.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility.

It does? In what way? What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

 

[atrib]

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility.

It does? In what way? What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

Good luck with that. Lumpy doesn't respond to questions, he only posts walls of text that say nothing and explain nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

Keeping in mind that Lumpy does not accept that the entire bible is divinely inspired, his logic is:

If those parts of the gospels where they say Jesus claimed to be representing God really happened, and he wasn't lying, he would have access to divine power.
If those parts of the gospels where they say the healing and resurrection miracles happened, then those can only be explained by Jesus having access to divine power.
And that means he's not a liar.
If those parts of the gospels where they say that Jesus offered eternal life really happened, then Jesus having access to divine power means he's in a position to back up that offer.

So Jesus is a non-liar with divine power who promised eternal life.

If those parts of the bible that say eternal life is conditional on certain behaviors (giving up all wealth to the poor, for example) are not divine, but added later by manipulative people, then maybe one need ONLY believe in the healing miracles in order to achieve salvation.

The Gospel According To Lumpenproletariat is a very efficient, very self-serving distillation of quite a bit of material into a very simple program for 'how do I get to live forever without changing much in my life on Earth?'

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility.

It does? In what way? What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

Good luck with that. Lumpy doesn't respond to questions, he only posts walls of text that say nothing and explain nothing.

Yes, I know. My post wasn't about getting an answer from Lumpy, it was just to highlight the fallacious nature of his statement, for other readers.

What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

Keeping in mind that Lumpy does not accept that the entire bible is divinely inspired, his logic is:

If those parts of the gospels where they say Jesus claimed to be representing God really happened, and he wasn't lying, he would have access to divine power.
If those parts of the gospels where they say the healing and resurrection miracles happened, then those can only be explained by Jesus having access to divine power.
And that means he's not a liar.
If those parts of the gospels where they say that Jesus offered eternal life really happened, then Jesus having access to divine power means he's in a position to back up that offer.

So Jesus is a non-liar with divine power who promised eternal life.

If those parts of the bible that say eternal life is conditional on certain behaviors (giving up all wealth to the poor, for example) are not divine, but added later by manipulative people, then maybe one need ONLY believe in the healing miracles in order to achieve salvation.

The Gospel According To Lumpenproletariat is a very efficient, very self-serving distillation of quite a bit of material into a very simple program for 'how do I get to live forever without changing much in my life on Earth?'

It's all a bit "assuming the consequent", though, isn't it? Surely the thing to do if, say, the miracles were somehow shown to have happened, is not to declare "Water into wine? That means we can live forever!!!!111!!!", it's to then say, "Ok, let's figure out how and why, and what it means in the context of these other claims and statements". To immediately jump to the "eternal life" conclusion is to miss out several important steps in the inquiry.

 

[Lion IRC]

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility.

It does? In what way? What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

He didn't say the other therefore "must also be true".
He said "a possibility".

Do you accept that if one supernatural (miracle) event actually DID take place, then it effectively opens the gate to the possibility of other phenomena?

Let me rephrase. Do you accept that if the existence of multiple universes (supernatural realms) is true, then one of those could feasibly be an afterlife destination? Death as a wormhole? The 'soul' as a quantum phenomenon?

Is it impossible for you to conceive of your coming into existence in this world as a 'singularity'?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's all a bit "assuming the consequent", though, isn't it? Surely the thing to do if, say, the miracles were somehow shown to have happened, is not to declare "Water into wine? That means we can live forever!!!!111!!!"

well, i never said it was good logic.
But that is the apparent train of thought.

 

[bilby]

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility.

It does? In what way? What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

He didn't say the other therefore "must also be true".
He said "a possibility".

Do you accept that if one supernatural (miracle) event actually DID take place, then it effectively opens the gate to the possibility of other phenomena?

Let me rephrase. Do you accept that if the existence of multiple universes (supernatural realms) is true, then one of those could feasibly be an afterlife destination? Death as a wormhole? The 'soul' as a quantum phenomenon?

Is it impossible for you to conceive of your coming into existence in this world as a 'singularity'?

All interesting notions. But to rise to the level of hypotheses, this nonsense would need to not fly in the face of well tested theories and incontrovertible observations.

It's possible that this crap has some validity, but rather less probable than that the Moon actually is made of green cheese.

So believing it would be the act of either an ignoramus, or a lunatic.

I am a nice guy, so I shall assume that your abject lack of knowledge of the Standard Model and Quantum Field Theory is the reason for your gross error in raising this nonsense as though it were not laugably stupid.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It matters whether those events happened, because if so it indicates that eternal life is a possibility.

It does? In what way? What's the causal connection between somebody performing a few tricks (or "miracles" if you must) and people living forever? Even if the one could be shown to be true, it doesn't follow that the other must also be true.

He didn't say the other therefore "must also be true".
He said "a possibility".

It still doesn't work.
"Some bozo turned water into wine, therefore there's a possibility we might live forever" is not a valid conclusion. There's no connection there.

Do you accept that if one supernatural (miracle) event actually DID take place, then it effectively opens the gate to the possibility of other phenomena?

I accept that if one supernatural event took place, and can be demonstrated to have happened by supernatural means, then it's possible there are other supernatural phenomena - but I couldn't be specific about those other phenomena based on that one. To say, therefore, that "water into wine" implies the possibility of "live forever" is still a non-sequitur.

Let me rephrase. Do you accept that if the existence of multiple universes (supernatural realms) is true, then one of those could feasibly be an afterlife destination? Death as a wormhole? The 'soul' as a quantum phenomenon?

Why do you try to equate "multiple universes" with "supernatural realms"? However many universes there may be, it's most probable that they're all entirely natural, based on what we know of our own universe. An "afterlife destination"? A "soul"? These are things we have no knowledge of the existence of, and which are entirely speculative. They are, I'll admit, "possibilities", but only in the way angels, djinn and demons are "possibilities".

Is it impossible for you to conceive of your coming into existence in this world as a 'singularity'?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but in any case, there is a huge gulf between "what can be conceived" and "what can be demonstrated".

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We have EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF, for the Jesus miracle acts, making it a reasonable belief.

But it must be repeated as often as DBT and others here keep complaining that the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to the events, and that because of this they are not reliable sources for us to use in determining what happened. What is "lame" about pointing out to these complainers that virtually ALL our sources for the ancient events are writers who were not eyewitnesses to the events?

The issue of probability has been raised over and over, but is either ignored or dismissed.

Yes, it's ignored by debunkers of the Jesus miracle stories. All the evidence is that these events did happen. More evidence = more probable.

The probability is increased by these accounts, compared to other miracle stories for which there is no such evidence. Or compared to other accounts of normal events for which there is less evidence, as many recorded events are believed even though there is less evidence for them than we have for the Jesus miracle events.

Belief that Jesus had power is based on the higher probability due to the evidence we have in this one case vs. all other miracle claims or legends or traditions. The accounts saying he did these acts are evidence, like all the ancient documents are evidence, whereas disbelief in his power is based on arbitrarily excluding the Gospel accounts and pretending that they are not evidence, even though ALL the ancient documents are evidence for what happened during those times.

When you arbitrarily exclude legitimate evidence, then falsely claim there is no evidence, then of course you have manufactured an argument for claiming it's improbable, based on your arbitrary exclusion of that legitimate evidence. Obviously you can make anything less "probable" by arbitrarily excluding the evidence for it.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that having access to multiple independent sources raises probability considerably, but this is dismissed.

But we have more independent sources for the miracles of Jesus than we have for many historical events we take for granted. Many accepted historical facts, especially for 2000 years ago, come from one or two sources only, and are farther removed from the reported events than the Gospels are removed from their reported events.

So the 4 (5) sources we have for the Jesus miracle acts make them more probable than many of the mainline facts we accept, for which there is less evidence.

It's been pointed out many times: Yes, you can prove Julius Caesar existed, etc., but the vast majority of our historical facts are not so corroborated by evidence as the Julius Caesar facts. I.e., for most of the accepted facts we have vastly less evidence than we have for the Julius Caesar facts.


Julius Caesar was not the only historical figure who existed.

There were others for whom there is much less evidence, but they did exist anyway, despite the less evidence.

You seem to have a problem comprehending this. You seem to think that the Jesus facts are disqualified because they have less evidence than the Julius Caesar facts. Don't you understand that there are billions of facts other than those which are corroborated by dozens of sources like we have for Julius Caesar? The vast majority are not. Historical facts generally are NOT corroborated as you imagine. It's normal for there to be only 1 or 2 or 3 sources for much of the historical record.

Though a small part of our historical record is supported by multiple independent sources, much of it is not, and yet it is still reliable, based on the very limited sources, often only one source. Why can't you understand this? Why do you keep demanding "multiple independent sources" (by which you apparently mean a dozen documents written by certified mainline "historians" and accompanied by physical artifacts, etc.) when these do not exist for the vast majority of our historical record?

We do have 4 (5) independent sources for the Jesus miracle acts. Scholar Bart Ehrman says the Gospel accounts are based on multiple independent sources. We don't have this degree of evidence for many of our accepted historical facts.

It has been pointed out that physics does not support extraordinary claims such as walking on water or raising the dead, nor do we have . . .

I.e., it supports that normal limited humans cannot do these things.

I.e., it cannot happen ordinarily, by normal human power. So 99.999% of the time those things cannot happen, because there's no power available which could do it.

But that doesn't mean there is no power at all which can do those things, or that no such things have ever happened. No physicist ever said there is no power in the Universe which could ever produce such phenomena.

. . . nor do we have evidence for this ever having happened, which . . .

Yes we do have some evidence that these happened. In most cases the evidence may be very poor, but for the Jesus resurrection and other miracles there is good evidence.

. . . which lowers probability considerably, but . . .

That such things are done by normal humans, or are done frequently. Right, there's low probability of normal humans doing it, or doing it regularly.

But there is some evidence that these have happened, in non-normal situations. Reports that something happened is evidence that it happened. If the number of cases is very few, then the probability is that it's very seldom, not that it never happens. No findings lead to the conclusion that these things never have happened.

You can draw the conclusion that nothing can ever be done unless physicists first prove that normal humans can do it. But we don't all have to draw that conclusion. Instead, there might be some events which are not normal, or acts performed by someone who was not a normal human.

If the evidence is strong in some cases, then it increases the probability that it happened in those cases. Maybe those are very few cases. Maybe the Jesus resurrection is the only case of this for which there is enough evidence to reasonably believe it. Maybe it's the only case ever of a resurrection where the risen one did not die again later. (There are documented cases of someone dying -- certified, pronounced dead -- and coming back to life. The general explanation is that the deceased person had not really died at all, but it has not been proved in every such case that the person never really died.)

The reported Jesus resurrection is evidence that it happened, like all our historical facts are based on reports that something happened. You can't say there are no reported cases of this, or anything similar, and so therefore this reported case of it has to be false. It's even possible that this is absolutely the only case in history of a resurrected body. But there are some other reported cases also, maybe fiction, but it's not known for sure that they are fiction.

That there are some reported cases of it means that there is some evidence of it having happened, even though it's limited evidence which you might dismiss. Even still, it is evidence, and you can't say there is no evidence. You can only say it's not enough evidence to satisfy you.

. . . which lowers probability considerably, but this is just dismissed because it does not suit the claims of the faith.

It's debatable how much the probability is lowered just because there are so few cases. There is some evidence. You are incorrect to insist that there is no evidence at all.

All you can say is that there is limited evidence of such things. But this only means there are very few cases of it rather than many. It means any given claim is probably false unless evidence is provided. The low "probability" doesn't mean there are no cases of it, but only that the actual cases, if any, are very few.

It's understood that the miracle acts have to be something rare, or something which ordinarily cannot happen. That's the whole point in attaching special importance to them in cases where they really did happen, or where there's good evidence.

So simply saying it's rare, or there are too few reported cases, is irrelevant. Even if there is only one reported case, it still has to be considered, as evidence, because of the possibility that it happened this one time in history, even if only this once.

You can reasonably choose to disbelieve it, but someone else can reasonably choose to believe it, based on that limited evidence, as much of what we "know" from history is based on limited evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's reasonable to believe the evidence, though it's limited and there's no certainty.

Though one might also reasonably dismiss the evidence as insufficient.

Learner: Who knows ? If you were to put "enough data" in continuously... after some time, physics could support phenomenons like that of the extraordinary claims to some extent.

Um, did you notice where he said:

DBT: nor do we have evidence for this ever having happened,

So, you're saying that if we get evidence in the future, we may have to accept that this is real. Which is pretty much what DBT was saying.

That we don't have evidence for it NOW, so the claims of an anonymous account that it happened, once upon a time, need some significant evidence to make it a credible account.

So you're relying on two fallacious arguments why the Jesus miracle acts did not happen:

1) Scientists today have no proof that such things can happen, and cannot make it happen; and

2) There are no reliable accounts that it happened.


1) Even if scientists are never able to make it happen does not prove that it cannot happen or never happened. We don't know if in the future normal humans will be able to extend life indefinitely, create immortality, resurrect the dead, etc. It's not possible now for normal humans to do this.

But we can't rule out that it's already possible for a superhuman entity to do it, or has already done it. So showing that it's not possible for normal humans to do it does not prove that it cannot be done by someone superhuman or by a human who is not normal but has power beyond normal human power.

So we have to rely on the reported facts of what has actually happened rather than on theories about what is possible. That it's generally impossible to do it (or for normal humans to do it) does not negate what has actually happened.


2) Do we have reliable reports that it happened?

. . . so the claims of an anonymous account that it happened, . . .

Once again you fall back on your disparagement of "anonymous" accounts, which are not rejected but are accepted as sources for history. You have never given any reason why "anonymous" accounts are not reliable. You simply impose this criterion selectively and dogmatically based on emotion and instinct only, with no reason ever given.

No one has ever shown that "anonymous" accounts are unreliable for historical events.

. . . so the claims of an anonymous account that it happened, once upon a time, . . ."

With your phrase "once upon a time" you are falsely implying that there is less reason to believe it because of the lengthy time span going back 2000 years. But if we follow that instinct we have to discount all our ancient history, based on ancient documents. The time span does not reduce the likelihood that the reported events happened, as long as the documents are near to the time of the reported events.

This is a main reason why we can believe the Jesus miracle reports much more reasonably than we can believe most or all of the ancient pagan myths, e.g., for which there are no written records from near the time of the alleged events.

. . . so the claims . . . need some significant evidence to make it a credible account.

The evidence for the Jesus miracle acts is more significant than the evidence for many of our accepted facts from ancient history. The 4 (5) sources we have, from the period when the events happened, is better evidence than for many (most) of the accepted facts of history from that time.


a universe of possibilities

Learner: Is cryonics possible? Some think so and pay to be frozen after death in hope that a future scientist would revive them (not that I think man could..defeating the purpose of mentioning). Is there such a thing possible as anti-gravity, manipulating the forces around or within a body mass?

There are plenty of SciFi stories, and myths, and cartoon adventures, and hopeful investments.

That's quite different from positive evidence that any one thing is possible, leading to accepting testimony that it happened somewhere down the line...

All you can say is that WE DON'T KNOW, and we have hopes for some of this. These visions of future possibilities are not illogical or unscientific even though some of them might turn out to be impossible or will never happen. It's not unreasonable to pursue some of these possibilities, or hope for them.

It's reasonable for one person to dismiss them all and disbelieve them all, but for another to believe some of them and hope it's true or that it will happen.

So, a nonbeliever in the Jesus miracles, or in the possibility of eternal life, can only say he rejects these and hopes they're not true. But he cannot say it's unreasonable for another to believe it. Because there is evidence, which makes it a reasonable possibility, or a reasonable hope, even though one can also reasonably disbelieve it because he thinks the evidence is not enough.

So belief is not irrational or unscientific or illogical, just because the evidence is limited. Where there is evidence, as we have for the Jesus miracles, it's reasonable to believe it, because we already believe much history which is based on less evidence than we have for the Jesus miracle acts.

Disbelievers should be willing to acknowledge that Christ belief is based on this (limited?) evidence from history, which they think is not enough, but which still is more than for much of our known history; and they should stop branding this belief as "blind faith" contrary to reason and science, which it is not. It's not "unreasonable" to hope for something, if there is some evidence for it.

Such belief, or hope, is based largely on the premise that there is so much in the universe that we don't know. So, with so much possibility, in such a vast universe, where there's vastly more truth which we don't know than that which we know, what is incorrect about hoping for a good possibility when this hope is based on some definite evidence?

Whereas the disbelief seems based on the premise that nothing can be true unless it is proved beyond all doubt by our known science, and all else has to be wishful thinking only.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The claim that it happened is evidence that it happened. No? Then toss out 98% of our historical record.

Regarding miracles: while Ehrman doesn't appear to believe in the gospel "miracles", he also doesn't, to my knowledge, come right out and say they couldn't have happened. His stance is that, as a historian, he has no way of saying for sure, one way or the other, whether they happened or not. This because miracles, by their very nature, leave no physical evidence of their having happened (and, . . .

Virtually all events of history leave no physical evidence of their having happened.

. . . (and, unlike Lumpy, he doesn't accept claims of miracles as evidence of miracles).

Claims of ANY events are evidence of those events. If that were not so, we'd have almost no recorded history. Virtually all of it consists of claims that events happened. Eliminate those claims --- you've eliminated almost all evidence for any historical events.

There is no reason to make an exception for miracle events and demand more than the claims that they happened.

What is reasonable is to ask for extra evidence for miracle claims, as being in a special category requiring extra corroboration. We have this extra evidence for the Jesus miracles, for which there are 4 (5) sources, near the time of the events. Which is much more evidence than is necessary for normal events (of ancient history), i.e., much more than for many recognized events for which there is less evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So we agree: The Gospel accounts are reliable sources for the 1st-century Jesus events. We're making progress.

Once again -- and again and again -- the main reason we cannot believe the gospel accounts is that we cannot believe ANY ancient history accounts.

If you're tired of hearing this, then Stop repeating this same error over and over!

The only problem is that no one has exactly made that claim or that error. You have altered the terms and references of what has been said in a way that suits your own needs.

my needs, your needs, whatever.

The point is, you do then agree that we have real evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, based on written accounts from the time, just like the evidence for all our historical events.

Of course there are quibblings over this or that point in ANY ancient account, so the Gospel accounts can be picked apart and critiqued just like all the other ancient accounts. And discrepancies or problems can be found here and there.

But you do agree that these accounts are generally to be accepted as evidence for the events of the time, along with all the other ancient written record. I.e., they're not unreliable because they're written by non-eyewitnesses, or because they're anonymous, or because 2 of them copied some text from Mark. You agree that those are phony objections to make about the non-reliability.

So we don't need to keep beating this dead horse. You agree the evidence is there, but you've decided that it's not enough evidence. While others arrive at a different conclusion which is no more or less reasonable than yours.

 

[Jobar]

The point is, you do then agree that we have real evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, based on written accounts from the time, just like the evidence for all our historical events.

Do *you* see that such a definition of 'evidence' means that we thus have 'evidence' for every miracle, every god, every religion ever written about?

There's this thing we call 'fiction', Lumpy. It's in writing, too. We can all agree that plenty of things, events, and people that are widely written about are not historical.

OTOH, there's lots of things written about that *are* historical. We can be entirely confident that the ancient Egyptians built pyramids; we can go and look at them. We can be positive that US astronauts landed on the moon back in the sixties and seventies of the previous century; we can view incredible numbers of pictures and films and artifacts, demonstrating that the words written about those landings are true. You can even consult people like me, who were there to watch those events unfold.

I, and many of those who post here, are convinced that the tales of Jesus are in the former, fictional, category. That does not at all mean we deny all of history!

Here's a very long, but quite educational series of YouTube videos to explain why we skeptics doubt the reality of Jesus, and all his miracles.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E&list=PL1D58C69D194384D2[/YOUTUBE]

 

[DBT]

I.e., it supports that normal limited humans cannot do these things.

Of course not. But that doesn't help establish the claim that miracles happened as reported in the bible...or that miracles such as described in the bible are even possible.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is real "EVIDENCE" for claims of past events? especially MIRACLE claims?

The point is, you do then agree that we have real evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, based on written accounts from the time, just like the evidence for all our historical events.

Do you see that such a definition of 'evidence' means that we thus have 'evidence' for every miracle, every god, every religion ever written about?

No we don't. You can't give an example.

"every" miracle? "every" religion?

"Is this trip necessary?"

OK. Let's take Hinduism, which has "millions" of miracle stories.

If you paid attention to any previous posts here, you'd know that all the stories about Krishna, e.g., were written thousands of years after the alleged events happened.

Conceivably only 1000 years or so, depending on which date you take as the historical time of Krishna, if he was a historical person, which cannot be ruled out. But if he was real, it was at least 1000 years before any of the stories were written, and this is the only record of him.

That is not serious evidence. For historical events we need a written record within 100 or 200 years of when the alleged events happened. Especially for miracle claims, which can easily develop over many centuries or generations in the mythologizing process.

Serious evidence means written accounts near to the time of the events, not 1000 years later, or even 200 or 300 years later.

It also means more than only one source, for very unusual claims like miracle events.

You might claim there is limited evidence in a very few other cases than the Jesus miracle events. We can look at those very few possible examples. But it is ludicrous to say we have "evidence" for "every miracle, every god, every religion ever written about."

That shows you have not read the previous posts in this topic, or have paid no attention to them.


Best examples of other miracle claims for which there is evidence:

Of all the examples offered in the posts here, back to the beginning, the most serious ones are that of Joseph Smith and Asclepius.

In such cases as these there is a common element which shows the impact of mythologizing, over time, and makes the claims easy to explain as fiction.

Because in these cases the stories are based on a very strong belief in an ancient healing deity already widely-recognized by the believers, and the appeal to this ancient miracle healing tradition, invoking the name of the ancient deity, made it possible for the practitioners of the current religious movement to persuade the worshipers that they had experienced a miracle healing.

Without invoking the name of the ancient reputed healer, the current practitioners (prophet/Asclepius priests, etc.) could not have won over the disciples to the belief in the claimed miracles being performed.