Outside the stories of the Bible, there is no evidence to support the claim that Jesus performed miracles. None. You keep repeating this lie even though you have been called out on it many times. Shame on you.
-
Features
120 Reasons to Reject Christianity
- Thread starter kyroot
- Start date
Outside the stories of the Bible, there is no evidence to support the claim that Jesus performed miracles. None. You keep repeating this lie even though you have been called out on it many times. Shame on you.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
The same evidence/logic for Christ belief also applies to all other beliefs.
No, the "evidence that Christianity is true" is not simply that "suddenly there were lots of things written about" Christianity after Christianity appeared. That "lots of things were written about" something is not evidence that the something is "true."
And what is "true"? or what makes a belief system "true"? Not every "Christian doctrine" has to be true, or every teaching preached in churches, or every sentence in the Bible, in order for the basic Christ faith to be true.
The evidence for Christianity is that the historical Jesus had power, which he demonstrated. This is much different than just saying "lots of things were written about" Christ or about Christianity.
If there are other figures in history who also had such power, you must not only name them but cite the writings about them which describe their power. The fact that all the Jesus-debunkers NEVER do this is strong evidence that there is no other one who really had any such power, or rather, for whom we have evidence of his power, as we do in the case of Jesus.
Stop just repeating the claim that there were many others who showed power and for whom there is evidence, and instead cite the sources. You have the New Testament gospel accounts which present this evidence in the case of Jesus. Now if there were others who did the same, name the sources, quote from them, and show us this evidence, just as the accounts of Jesus can be quoted so you can know of the accounts of his acts.
It's not enough that "lots of things were written about" Mohammed or Krishna or whatever figure you're claiming had power. Name the written sources which describe their power, and quote from them so we can read of their miracle acts.
Why don't any of you guys ever do this? What's wrong? Can't you find these accounts you claim exist? Do you just believe there were miracle accounts about these other heroes or deity figures even though you've never read any such accounts?
Just because some fire-breathing Jesus-debunker celebrity foams at the mouth with these claims about other miracle-worker heroes does not prove that those accounts actually do exist. What are the sources for these miracle acts which you claim exist? Why can't you ever quote from one of them?
It's true that you can find some miracle stories in ancient mythology, about Zeus sending down lightning or about someone who grew wings and flew or someone who turned people into stone by making them look at Medusa's head and so on. But this is all you have. And yet you don't mean these examples because you never offer them even though the stories are there for you to quote from.
You know that these are fundamentally different than the Jesus miracle accounts.
Jesus is identified as an historical figure, living at about 30 AD, in Galilee and traveling to Jerusalem, etc. And it is said that he performed healings to vast numbers of people such that the sick were brought to him wherever he traveled, and he healed them. And he was killed and rose from the grave and was seen alive by many witnesses, with St. Paul saying that even 500 people saw him.
That is a specific historical figure, or ALLEGED historical figure, identified to a particular geographical location and date. That is the "evidence."
Now, you claim there were others also, for whom there is similar evidence? OK, then name them and identify the sources and quote from them so we can read about those persons. What documents, near to the time of the alleged historical figures, exist that we can read, and what do they say about these miracle-worker heroes who are claimed to have existed?
What "same thing"? Name the case. Who? Where is it written? Where and when did this historical figure allegedly exist?
How can it "count as evidence" if you never present that evidence? We have the gospel accounts as evidence for the miracles of Jesus, which demonstrate his power.
So, where is the "same thing" about some other reported miracle-worker showing his power? How can a non-identified account qualify is "evidence" of anything?
You have to first cite that evidence before we can judge whether it counts as evidence.
What other religions? Who says they're not true? Maybe there are several "religions" that are "true" in some of their teachings. Even if Christ did have power and can give humans eternal life, this would not blot out all other religions of any kind and everything they teach.
Rather, the relevant question is whether there is any other historical figure, or any other event in history, showing to us a source of life-giving power such as Jesus demonstrated. If you know of another case where similar power was demonstrated, attested to by documents near to the time of the events, then name that case and identify the source of our information about it, or about that historical figure who demonstrated such similar power.
No, the exact same logic applies to any other claim about someone having similar power. Is there a non-Christian belief in such power being offered to humans, to give us eternal life? What is that belief, or that religion, or that claim, which is presented in documents near to the time that such power was demonstrated?
So the same logic applies to any other claim about any such source of power, or any other miracle-worker, from any religion or cult or belief system. Give us the example of such a source of power and let us compare that example to the case of Jesus the Galilean in 30 AD for whom we have documents near to the time of the alleged events.
But you are not doing this -- i.e., you are NOT applying the same logic to another conclusion. What is the "other conclusion" you are applying this same logic to? Who is the other miracle-worker figure you claim to have evidence for? What is the other example of a power source similar to the kind of power that Jesus demonstrated in his miracle acts?
How can anyone judge your "conclusion" to be invalid when you don't even give us your conclusion, i.e., your example of some other claim for which there is similar evidence as we have for the power that Jesus demonstrated?
You can't claim your conclusion or your example is being rejected as invalid, even though it follows the "same logic" as the Christ example, unless you first present your example or your conclusion. Something not presented for consideration cannot be rejected as "invalid."
No one has judged your "conclusion" as invalid. You have to present your conclusion first before someone can pronounce it as "invalid."
How can you complain that your conclusion has been rejected or pronounced "invalid" when you haven't even presented it yet?
No, the "evidence that Christianity is true" is not simply that "suddenly there were lots of things written about" Christianity after Christianity appeared. That "lots of things were written about" something is not evidence that the something is "true."
And what is "true"? or what makes a belief system "true"? Not every "Christian doctrine" has to be true, or every teaching preached in churches, or every sentence in the Bible, in order for the basic Christ faith to be true.
The evidence for Christianity is that the historical Jesus had power, which he demonstrated. This is much different than just saying "lots of things were written about" Christ or about Christianity.
If there are other figures in history who also had such power, you must not only name them but cite the writings about them which describe their power. The fact that all the Jesus-debunkers NEVER do this is strong evidence that there is no other one who really had any such power, or rather, for whom we have evidence of his power, as we do in the case of Jesus.
Stop just repeating the claim that there were many others who showed power and for whom there is evidence, and instead cite the sources. You have the New Testament gospel accounts which present this evidence in the case of Jesus. Now if there were others who did the same, name the sources, quote from them, and show us this evidence, just as the accounts of Jesus can be quoted so you can know of the accounts of his acts.
It's not enough that "lots of things were written about" Mohammed or Krishna or whatever figure you're claiming had power. Name the written sources which describe their power, and quote from them so we can read of their miracle acts.
Why don't any of you guys ever do this? What's wrong? Can't you find these accounts you claim exist? Do you just believe there were miracle accounts about these other heroes or deity figures even though you've never read any such accounts?
Just because some fire-breathing Jesus-debunker celebrity foams at the mouth with these claims about other miracle-worker heroes does not prove that those accounts actually do exist. What are the sources for these miracle acts which you claim exist? Why can't you ever quote from one of them?
It's true that you can find some miracle stories in ancient mythology, about Zeus sending down lightning or about someone who grew wings and flew or someone who turned people into stone by making them look at Medusa's head and so on. But this is all you have. And yet you don't mean these examples because you never offer them even though the stories are there for you to quote from.
You know that these are fundamentally different than the Jesus miracle accounts.
Jesus is identified as an historical figure, living at about 30 AD, in Galilee and traveling to Jerusalem, etc. And it is said that he performed healings to vast numbers of people such that the sick were brought to him wherever he traveled, and he healed them. And he was killed and rose from the grave and was seen alive by many witnesses, with St. Paul saying that even 500 people saw him.
That is a specific historical figure, or ALLEGED historical figure, identified to a particular geographical location and date. That is the "evidence."
Now, you claim there were others also, for whom there is similar evidence? OK, then name them and identify the sources and quote from them so we can read about those persons. What documents, near to the time of the alleged historical figures, exist that we can read, and what do they say about these miracle-worker heroes who are claimed to have existed?
What "same thing"? Name the case. Who? Where is it written? Where and when did this historical figure allegedly exist?
How can it "count as evidence" if you never present that evidence? We have the gospel accounts as evidence for the miracles of Jesus, which demonstrate his power.
So, where is the "same thing" about some other reported miracle-worker showing his power? How can a non-identified account qualify is "evidence" of anything?
You have to first cite that evidence before we can judge whether it counts as evidence.
What other religions? Who says they're not true? Maybe there are several "religions" that are "true" in some of their teachings. Even if Christ did have power and can give humans eternal life, this would not blot out all other religions of any kind and everything they teach.
Rather, the relevant question is whether there is any other historical figure, or any other event in history, showing to us a source of life-giving power such as Jesus demonstrated. If you know of another case where similar power was demonstrated, attested to by documents near to the time of the events, then name that case and identify the source of our information about it, or about that historical figure who demonstrated such similar power.
No, the exact same logic applies to any other claim about someone having similar power. Is there a non-Christian belief in such power being offered to humans, to give us eternal life? What is that belief, or that religion, or that claim, which is presented in documents near to the time that such power was demonstrated?
So the same logic applies to any other claim about any such source of power, or any other miracle-worker, from any religion or cult or belief system. Give us the example of such a source of power and let us compare that example to the case of Jesus the Galilean in 30 AD for whom we have documents near to the time of the alleged events.
But you are not doing this -- i.e., you are NOT applying the same logic to another conclusion. What is the "other conclusion" you are applying this same logic to? Who is the other miracle-worker figure you claim to have evidence for? What is the other example of a power source similar to the kind of power that Jesus demonstrated in his miracle acts?
How can anyone judge your "conclusion" to be invalid when you don't even give us your conclusion, i.e., your example of some other claim for which there is similar evidence as we have for the power that Jesus demonstrated?
You can't claim your conclusion or your example is being rejected as invalid, even though it follows the "same logic" as the Christ example, unless you first present your example or your conclusion. Something not presented for consideration cannot be rejected as "invalid."
No one has judged your "conclusion" as invalid. You have to present your conclusion first before someone can pronounce it as "invalid."
How can you complain that your conclusion has been rejected or pronounced "invalid" when you haven't even presented it yet?
DBT
Contributor
These things have not been shown to have been demonstrated. These things have been written about. We have what was written. We do not know that what was written actually happened. Given the nature of the claims and context in which they were made, it is likely that these things are embellishments of the theme they are meant to support.
Last edited:
James Brown
Veteran Member
I have a purple dragon which can breathe fire in my garage. This one time, he scared away a burglar with his loud roar and fire-breathing. My next-door neighbor has seen my dragon and he believes it.
There, I've just demonstrated it. That's evidence that it's true.
There, I've just demonstrated it. That's evidence that it's true.
That's cool. I would like to pay you money to hear more about your dragon, if that's OK with you.
Atheos
Veteran Member
Your ignorance of the vast number of artifacts and literary works detailing what we now can surmise about the ancient Greeks is your problem, not ours. You've been given links several times in this thread which you have obviously ignored. You have demonstrated an insufferable tendency to refuse to read and respond to rejoinders made by others in this thread, and in the epitome of hypocrisy you dare to accuse us of "just repeating claims."
Okay, here's a start: Apollodorus of Athens died around 120 B.C. His classic text "On the Gods" is one of many ancient literary works detailing many of the works done by Greek gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, ect.), and god-men (Heracles, Perseus, etc.,) which encompass great works, many of which are eerily similar to the sorts of miracles in the later stories written about your Jesus character. The rich history of Greek / Roman mythology is contained not only in written literature but thousands of artifacts including paintings, statues, building art and pottery. Do your own Googling. Educate yourself a bit so you don't sound so damn ignorant.
Even if we didn't have this rich heritage of ancient works detailing all these things we'd still have Justin Martyr's witness:
Emphasis added by me. "Nothing different." The Jesus myth was so similar to the ancient myths of Romans and Greeks that one of your own early apologists theorized that "wicked devils perpetrated these things" in an attempt to undermine the uniqueness of the Jesus myth. Stop with this asinine and baseless assertion that these things aren't as we have represented.
James Brown
Veteran Member
That is OK with me.
I'll donate a portion of the proceeds to charity, so that we both feel good about the transaction.
James Brown
Veteran Member
I find it interesting that apologists look at other cultures' Flood myths, declare them also to be 'eerily similar', and decide that that is evidence for Noah's Deluge.
But if skeptics point out other cultures' Man-God myths, then Christian apologists wave them away as "not similar enough."
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Is the Christ power our best hope for eternal life? What is a better hope?
OK, so by that logic, evolution theory is bad. Evolution theory was used to justify previous practices of genocide and eugenics. There was an increase of these evil practices as a result of natural selection theory, because some theorists used Darwinism to justify these practices, which led to the increase of them.
If evolution does something bad, then it's bad, whether it's only evolutionists who do it, or every eugenicist/genocidist tradition. "Bad is bad," Keithy.
Why should Christian ideology have to lead to moral superiority? The following illustrates what Christ faith leads to:
He said these same words to another woman who had not been cured of an illness (Luke 7:50). So being "saved" probably means something more than only physical healing.
Here it is not moral superiority that Christ offers to the believers, but salvation or healing.
This is not about squabbling over whose ideology is morally superior, but about finding salvation or healing.
Maybe "a real god" would not sponsor any religion. What matters is whether Christ has/had power, not whose religion is the one "actually sponsored by a real god." Maybe God has more important things to do than decide which religion to sponsor.
What should we know about them? Do you know something about them that makes you morally superior to the rest of us? Are all your beliefs based on the moral superiority or Enlightenment you have attained because of your superior knowledge of all the religions of the world? What is the superiority over others you have gained as a result of the revelations you've received from all these religions?
But you do know? What is it that you know?
Do you know that certain of them offer eternal life or salvation and have presented evidence of their power to offer this? What is the evidence they have presented?
Why is it important to identify which attempts to create religions are the greater or lesser?
My interest is in the possibility of eternal life. Are you saying this is an invalid interest for someone to have unless they first acquire the same level of Enlightenment or moral superiority you have gained because you know whose attempt to create religions was a greater or lesser one?
To the woman in the above verse, who "came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak" and thought "If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured," would you say, "Lady, you reject most of the religions of the world without knowing spit about them -- You don't know what they teach, yet you feel confident to dismiss them as being lesser attempts to create religions" etc.?
Instead, if you know a better source of healing power for her, wouldn't it be more helpful to give her that information, so she might seek that better source?
If you really don't know of a better hope for her, why do you deride her for trying out this possibility she happens to know about?
I know it's a "leap of faith," but I believe this woman not only was immediately cured of her bleeding, as the account says, but also gained her future eternal life at that moment. Being "saved" meant more than only the immediate bodily healing.
This power, which was shown and for which we have evidence, is our best hope that eternal life is possible for us.
You don't disprove this hope or undermine it or invalidate it by simply claiming there might be other religions to know about and that you are morally superior because of the Enlightenment you have found from having that knowledge that the rest of us bumpkins are lacking.
OK, so by that logic, evolution theory is bad. Evolution theory was used to justify previous practices of genocide and eugenics. There was an increase of these evil practices as a result of natural selection theory, because some theorists used Darwinism to justify these practices, which led to the increase of them.
If evolution does something bad, then it's bad, whether it's only evolutionists who do it, or every eugenicist/genocidist tradition. "Bad is bad," Keithy.
Why should Christian ideology have to lead to moral superiority? The following illustrates what Christ faith leads to:
He said these same words to another woman who had not been cured of an illness (Luke 7:50). So being "saved" probably means something more than only physical healing.
Here it is not moral superiority that Christ offers to the believers, but salvation or healing.
This is not about squabbling over whose ideology is morally superior, but about finding salvation or healing.
Maybe "a real god" would not sponsor any religion. What matters is whether Christ has/had power, not whose religion is the one "actually sponsored by a real god." Maybe God has more important things to do than decide which religion to sponsor.
What should we know about them? Do you know something about them that makes you morally superior to the rest of us? Are all your beliefs based on the moral superiority or Enlightenment you have attained because of your superior knowledge of all the religions of the world? What is the superiority over others you have gained as a result of the revelations you've received from all these religions?
But you do know? What is it that you know?
Do you know that certain of them offer eternal life or salvation and have presented evidence of their power to offer this? What is the evidence they have presented?
Why is it important to identify which attempts to create religions are the greater or lesser?
My interest is in the possibility of eternal life. Are you saying this is an invalid interest for someone to have unless they first acquire the same level of Enlightenment or moral superiority you have gained because you know whose attempt to create religions was a greater or lesser one?
To the woman in the above verse, who "came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak" and thought "If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured," would you say, "Lady, you reject most of the religions of the world without knowing spit about them -- You don't know what they teach, yet you feel confident to dismiss them as being lesser attempts to create religions" etc.?
Instead, if you know a better source of healing power for her, wouldn't it be more helpful to give her that information, so she might seek that better source?
If you really don't know of a better hope for her, why do you deride her for trying out this possibility she happens to know about?
I know it's a "leap of faith," but I believe this woman not only was immediately cured of her bleeding, as the account says, but also gained her future eternal life at that moment. Being "saved" meant more than only the immediate bodily healing.
This power, which was shown and for which we have evidence, is our best hope that eternal life is possible for us.
You don't disprove this hope or undermine it or invalidate it by simply claiming there might be other religions to know about and that you are morally superior because of the Enlightenment you have found from having that knowledge that the rest of us bumpkins are lacking.
DBT
Contributor
What is true? Places that are mentioned in the bible exist, that is true. Some of the people mentioned in the bible were probably actual people, so that is true. Some of the events described in the bible may have happened, so these descriptions of events could be true, the bible includes the concept of morality such as the golden rule, which may not be an issue...but the really serious difficulties arise when supernatural personages and supernatural events are included in the narrative, be it the bible or other 'holy books' - so to state the obvious, it is the supernatural content of the narrative of the bible, and other holy books, that are the bones of contention.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Anything closer to actual evidence for eternal life would be better.
As you keep ignoring, you haven't offered anything to base this hope upon.
You already HAVE a religion telling you that eternal life is possible. You have no evidence that it is. Maybe we don't have souls.
You have a religious belief that someone's blessing is necessary for us to acquire this eternal life. There's no evidence for it. Maybe we all go to heaven naturally.
You have stories that tell you Christ has power over death and illness. Even at face value, that's not evidence Christ was real, that the afterlife was real, or that his powers had any way to get us into the afterlife, or that they're even necessary.
Oky. If you want to call evolution bad AND acknowledge that christains doing bad reflect poorly on Christainity, i'll accept that. But you're probably not going to actually accept what you think my logic is.
Um...did they actually use Darwinism to come to the conclusion of genocide or was it a rationalization? Darwinism doesn't actually teach morality, so it doesn't quite compare to someone saying they have an ethical code FROM GOD HIMSELF, and a mandate to wipe out entire nations and creeds. Because The Books does record that God has directed genocide a few times.
It's a bit of a mismatch.
Evolution doesn't "DO" anything, Lumpy. It certainly doesn't tell people 'in my name, you should vanquish your opponents.
The question is still going to be, does the theory direct it or does it rest in the minds of those that think they can take advantage of it?
Why believe that he offers salvation, though? Because someone wrote a story that said he promised it?
Have any of the saved reported back from Heaven that it's true?
Which you cannot provide actual evidence for. So 'this' is really about 'nothing.' Nothing but you yabbering away on what you believe but cannot provide evidence for.
But you're in this thread for the express purpose of defending Christainity. IF it's not connected with God in any way, then why do you care?
Well, if you're going to say that Christainity is the only religion that does something, you should at least know enough about the other religions to not look like a drooling idiot.
Yes.
I know not to make big sweeping generalizations about religions i don't know fuck about.
That's gotta put me one up on you.
No. Just my willingness to generalize and to talk bullshit.
Revelations? No.
Simply reading and researching. You should try it at some point. Before you publish bullshit conclusions that make you look like a drooling idiot.
Reread the thread, Lumpy. Everytime someone points out that your sweeping claims are in error or unjustified or simply fucked. That's what actual scholars of comparative religion can offer. Not your self-serving idiocy.
I've already seen how you respond to anything that doesn't support your favorite conclusions, so why would i bother to give you something else to ignore for five months, then lie about and marginalize?
Do your own homework or forever be very obvious when you're talking shit.
It's important when you try to identify Christainity being the best hope, because it's the only one that ______, you really do need to actually know what you're talking about.
Pity, then, that you can't find anything to justify this unless you accept unattributed stories that cannot be verified, and don't offer evidence for it.
Nope, pay attention.
I'm saying your argument FOR the possibility of eternal life is full of potholes and sink holes which you cannot seebecause of your ignorance in the topic. You can hope for eternal life all you want. You're just not offering a coherent reason for anyone to think you've found it.
Yes. Go find herself a secular doctor, preferably an atheist who won't fill her mind up with unsubstantiated rumors and bullshit.
I don't deride her for hoping. I don't deride you for hoping.
I deride your presuppositionist argument for being full of ignorance, bluster and arrogance.
That's what i deride.
And i don't see any reason to believe she ever even existed.
You keep saying there's evidence for this power. Ignoring all the people pointing out holes in this claim.
You might as well be telling us about how you're going to catch a Leprechaun in your garden and become rich, because someone sold you a butterfly net that he promised would catch Leprechauns.
You're confused, again. I'm not using the other religions to disprove your hope.
Just point out that your use of Pascal's Wager is doomed because it pretends there's only one religion to choose from.
Same as you pretend there's only one prophet to choose from.
But i am at least superior to anyone making ignorance-filled claims about how unique Jesus or Christainity is.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,361
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Obtaining 'Eternal life' is like obtaining ownership of 'All the money in the world' - a childish and impractical wish with no basis in reality.
You can hope for eternal life, infinite weath, or a chocolate sundae the size of the Empire State Building; but to expect that these things are achievable goals is infantile.
You can hope for eternal life, infinite weath, or a chocolate sundae the size of the Empire State Building; but to expect that these things are achievable goals is infantile.
Atheos
Veteran Member
Lumpenproletariat said:
Since you cannot actually name the fucking sources who wrote what people dishonestly call Mark, Matthew, Luke and John decades and hundreds of miles removed from the events in question this seems at least a little bit hypocritical. I'd almost be tempted to say it was a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. But it doesn't even rise to that level.
You've been presented with the sworn testimony of actual named and signed eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's healing powers as well as those of Mohammad's. Witnesses whose testimony was sometimes collected within days of the events in question, not decades. Witnesses who could actually be demonstrated to have known the person in question. You have yet to present us with a single named person who even is so bold as to put his name on one of these anonymous gospels and yet you have the chutzpah to issue such a blindingly foolish challenge as the one quoted above. The writers of the gospels never claim to have seen any of the things they report and they never claim to have met anyone who actually saw the things they report and they never identify themselves in any way. It is the worst possible evidence imaginable if one could even be so kind as to call it "evidence." We've been over this dozens of times now in this thread and you just keep ignoring it.
No, this isn't a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. It's a matter of the pot calling the stainless steel kettle black.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Yep. Wish, wash, rinse...repeat. Haggling with S&M about the ORGASM was more entertaining. Maybe we could make a game out of who wrote what and when, to the theme of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first"...
That reminds me of when I say 'he can't see the forest for the pine needles'.
Atheos
Veteran Member
Lumpenproletariat said:
Crap, I got so wrapped up with the previous post that I forgot to add the bit that I was originally going to say.
Lumpenproletariat, you are the only one here claiming anyone had any special powers to do miraculous feats. What the rest of us are pointing out is that there are (and have been for centuries) stories about people having special powers to perform miraculous feats. And all you have is more of the same. Stories. Not evidence, no artifacts that couldn't exist had they not been the product of miracles. Nothing that defies explanation apart from the unavoidable conclusion that a miracle must have happened. Nothing but stories. Period.
There is absolutely nothing about your stories that would necessarily have to be any different had the authors of these stories made up all the anecdotes about miracles. Nothing. And many of these anecdotes are similar to the anecdotes that had been circulating for centuries about Greek and Roman gods. That is all we have maintained throughout this discussion and we have provided abundant evidence that you have gratuitously ignored.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Is atheism/humanism guilty of mass murder?
So you think a Marxist today, or his belief system, is to blame for the slaughter of millions of Chinese and Russians by Mao and Stalin?
You would blame "Capitalism" or free enterprise for the crimes committed by the Pinochet regime in Chile?
This makes even less sense than to blame Wagner-opera listeners or performers for the murders committed by the Nazis.
This is false blame. Wagner performers today are not guilty of crimes committed by Nazis, and Christians today are not guilty of witch-burnings or of murders committed by the Crusaders, and today's Communists/socialists are not guilty of murdering millions of Chinese and Russians.
Also, today's evolutionists are not guilty of eugenics crimes done out of belief in Darwinist theory.
You can't blame Wagner's music or evolution or Marxism/Humanism/atheism for crimes done by someone who promoted Wagner's music or who was an evolutionist or a Marxist.
Why do people die in wars? What do they die for when the warring tribes fight over land and resources? It's not Christianity. You think removing Christianity from the picture puts an end to wars? You think it was Christianity that the Greeks and Persians fought over? Whatever the reason or cause, the slaughtering was going on tens of thousands of years prior to Christianity or Judaism.
The "crusades" would have happened anyway, regardless whether Christianity had existed.
As long as there were Europeans and Middle-easterners, those wars would have happened anyway, perhaps even on a greater scale. Christianity did not invent war. The East vs. West hatred existed prior to Christianity.
As to witchburnings, let's assume you're right and that witchburning resulted from Christianity. Or the witchburnings would not have happened, without Christianity. It might be.
It might also be that eugenocide crimes would not have happened had it not been for evolution theory which laid the theoretical foundation for eugenics.
And it might be that mass murders in Russia and China, numbering tens of millions slaughtered, would not have happened had it not been for Marxism, which in turn would not have existed without "humanism"/atheism as its basis.
And so therefore evolution and humanism and atheism must be rejected because these both led to murder and genocide practices? The number who were thus slaughtered in the name of humanism and evolution could easily be greater than the number slaughtered in the Christian persecutions of witches.
Should a belief or idea or theory be rejected because it led to some bad result or bad behavior by someone acting upon the belief or idea or theory?
If Christianity deserves blame for all those killings done in its name, then must not evolution and Darwin and Marx and humanism likewise be blamed for the millions killed by the eugenocists and Mao and Stalin?
No, it's his religion or political theory or belief system that is not to be scorned simply because he committed those crimes.
What makes no sense is to blame the belief or religion or theory or idea of the one who commits the crime. Because this means evolution is to blame for the eugenocide crimes that were committed. That makes sense to you? And so evolutionists should recant and reject Darwin because crimes/murders were committed based on evolution theory?
And likewise all humanists should recant and reject humanism because of the crimes committed by Mao and Stalin in the name of Marx the humanist?
Just as Mao and Stalin murdered millions in the name of Marxist humanism. And eugenocide practitioners murdered people in the name of Darwin's theories.
These are no more Christianity's fault than the mass murders done by Mao and Stalin are humanism's fault.
Most of those "horrible things" would have been done anyway, in the name of some other god or cause.
But regardless of that, even if the "horrible things" were a result of the belief system, like eugenics crimes were a result of evolution theory, still it's not the fault of evolution theory that the crimes happened, and it's not the fault of Christianity that witchburning crimes were committed by a minority of Christians.
So you think a Marxist today, or his belief system, is to blame for the slaughter of millions of Chinese and Russians by Mao and Stalin?
You would blame "Capitalism" or free enterprise for the crimes committed by the Pinochet regime in Chile?
This makes even less sense than to blame Wagner-opera listeners or performers for the murders committed by the Nazis.
This is false blame. Wagner performers today are not guilty of crimes committed by Nazis, and Christians today are not guilty of witch-burnings or of murders committed by the Crusaders, and today's Communists/socialists are not guilty of murdering millions of Chinese and Russians.
Also, today's evolutionists are not guilty of eugenics crimes done out of belief in Darwinist theory.
You can't blame Wagner's music or evolution or Marxism/Humanism/atheism for crimes done by someone who promoted Wagner's music or who was an evolutionist or a Marxist.
Why do people die in wars? What do they die for when the warring tribes fight over land and resources? It's not Christianity. You think removing Christianity from the picture puts an end to wars? You think it was Christianity that the Greeks and Persians fought over? Whatever the reason or cause, the slaughtering was going on tens of thousands of years prior to Christianity or Judaism.
The "crusades" would have happened anyway, regardless whether Christianity had existed.
As long as there were Europeans and Middle-easterners, those wars would have happened anyway, perhaps even on a greater scale. Christianity did not invent war. The East vs. West hatred existed prior to Christianity.
As to witchburnings, let's assume you're right and that witchburning resulted from Christianity. Or the witchburnings would not have happened, without Christianity. It might be.
It might also be that eugenocide crimes would not have happened had it not been for evolution theory which laid the theoretical foundation for eugenics.
And it might be that mass murders in Russia and China, numbering tens of millions slaughtered, would not have happened had it not been for Marxism, which in turn would not have existed without "humanism"/atheism as its basis.
And so therefore evolution and humanism and atheism must be rejected because these both led to murder and genocide practices? The number who were thus slaughtered in the name of humanism and evolution could easily be greater than the number slaughtered in the Christian persecutions of witches.
Should a belief or idea or theory be rejected because it led to some bad result or bad behavior by someone acting upon the belief or idea or theory?
If Christianity deserves blame for all those killings done in its name, then must not evolution and Darwin and Marx and humanism likewise be blamed for the millions killed by the eugenocists and Mao and Stalin?
No, it's his religion or political theory or belief system that is not to be scorned simply because he committed those crimes.
What makes no sense is to blame the belief or religion or theory or idea of the one who commits the crime. Because this means evolution is to blame for the eugenocide crimes that were committed. That makes sense to you? And so evolutionists should recant and reject Darwin because crimes/murders were committed based on evolution theory?
And likewise all humanists should recant and reject humanism because of the crimes committed by Mao and Stalin in the name of Marx the humanist?
Just as Mao and Stalin murdered millions in the name of Marxist humanism. And eugenocide practitioners murdered people in the name of Darwin's theories.
These are no more Christianity's fault than the mass murders done by Mao and Stalin are humanism's fault.
Most of those "horrible things" would have been done anyway, in the name of some other god or cause.
But regardless of that, even if the "horrible things" were a result of the belief system, like eugenics crimes were a result of evolution theory, still it's not the fault of evolution theory that the crimes happened, and it's not the fault of Christianity that witchburning crimes were committed by a minority of Christians.
Yes it is. Either you buy into a belief system with no safity controls that builds on nothing but authoritanism or you buy into a belief system that constantly revisit and checks if it is actually true.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Reason #9: The Ten Commandments --- YAWN!
Reason #9
No it's not obvious what such a "god" would have devised. Maybe he would not have devised ANY set of rules for mankind.
But maybe the alternative long wishlist above would have been too complicated and would have placed humanity on a trajectory of confusion and chaos and thus a worse outcome than the one we have experienced.
So it's not clear what the ideal set of laws would have been. But it doesn't matter. Christian belief is not based on the premise that "The Ten Commandments" is the best possible set of rules that could ever be formulated, or that formulating a set of rules is God's main purpose, or Christ's main purpose.
Maybe God's interest in us is something more important than that of imposing rules.
It isn't necessary for a Christ believer to cherish "The Ten Commandments" as a direct set of rules imposed onto humans by God, literally dictated by him.
Vraiment!
This "reason to reject Christianity" may unwittingly be the best one on the list (currently 409 total), because each time I re-read it to try to find something to disagree with, I fall asleep from boredom. Certainly one way to win a debate is to bore your opponent to death so he can't respond.
I think I can scrap this "reason #9" with a simple rule:
Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about the central figure that Christianity is about, namely, Jesus Christ, who demonstrated to humans a life-giving power that could save us or give us eternal life. Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about this Christ person in order to qualify as relevant and needing a response.
Reason #9
No it's not obvious what such a "god" would have devised. Maybe he would not have devised ANY set of rules for mankind.
But maybe the alternative long wishlist above would have been too complicated and would have placed humanity on a trajectory of confusion and chaos and thus a worse outcome than the one we have experienced.
So it's not clear what the ideal set of laws would have been. But it doesn't matter. Christian belief is not based on the premise that "The Ten Commandments" is the best possible set of rules that could ever be formulated, or that formulating a set of rules is God's main purpose, or Christ's main purpose.
Maybe God's interest in us is something more important than that of imposing rules.
It isn't necessary for a Christ believer to cherish "The Ten Commandments" as a direct set of rules imposed onto humans by God, literally dictated by him.
Vraiment!
This "reason to reject Christianity" may unwittingly be the best one on the list (currently 409 total), because each time I re-read it to try to find something to disagree with, I fall asleep from boredom. Certainly one way to win a debate is to bore your opponent to death so he can't respond.
I think I can scrap this "reason #9" with a simple rule:
Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about the central figure that Christianity is about, namely, Jesus Christ, who demonstrated to humans a life-giving power that could save us or give us eternal life. Any "Reason to reject Christianity" has to say something about this Christ person in order to qualify as relevant and needing a response.
Avatar
New member
You think that list was complicated? Seriously? Calls for compassion and justice would have been too much for the ancient people to handle, and might have sent them on an even WORSE course than they have already?
The command "Thou shalt not own another being as property" was too much for people to handle, and would have to wait almost 2000 years before it finally became unacceptable?
The concept of racial equality would have "confused" people so badly that they would have mistreated their fellow human beings even worse than they already have?
The command "thou shalt not rape" was too confusing to understand?
A command to help others in need would have led to worse abuse?
Really?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
The theory of evolution does not DIRECT people to kill the weak or the infirm.
Christainity's big source document does DIRECTLY order people to kill witches.
IF you don't see any difference in the two, then you're in serious trouble.
If you CHOOSE not to see the difference, you're merely despicable.