120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Atheos]

The truth is simple and doesn't require thousands of words to defend.

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether Jesus was an actual person or a fictional character.

There is considerable evidence that the tales of this character performing miracles evolved over several decades, coalescing 1500 miles away from the purported events and separated by no less than 40 years from the time frame in which they were alleged to have happened.

There is abundant evidence that the writers of these stories reported things that we can definitely demonstrate did not happen. There is no evidence that these people saw or even talked to anyone who saw the things they wrote about.

There are literally thousands of fantastic myths which have been believed by large groups of people over the history of humanity. This phenomenon continues today.

It takes thousands of words to create a smoke screen large enough to hide untruth. It only takes a few words to simply speak what is true.

 

[skepticalbip]

(continued)

Reports that the "impossible" happened are EVIDENCE that it did happen. Extra reports = extra evidence.


(to be continued)

Reports that the impossible happened are evidence of people being fooled, mislead, or lied to. You need to look up the word, "impossible".


Again, we have many, many reports, first hand reports, of anal probing aliens abducting people. Do all these "extra reports" convince you that the accounts given are accurately describing real events? If not, how can you justify believing second or third hand accounts written by anonymous authors that were no where near the supposed events in either time or space?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whether the belief is true or not is what matters -- not what consequence it leads to if someone holds the belief.

A loving god who could forgive all his children, but still sends some to Hell, that's not believable.

We don't know if God sends anyone to Hell. If he does not, then fine -- stop worrying about it! But if he does, all your DISbelieving it won't stop him from sending them to Hell. So, what's the point of preaching your theories about where God should or should not send someone?

That's too monstrous to believe.

A lot of "monstrous" things do in fact happen. Condemning something as "monstrous" won't stop it from happening.

This argument here based on preaching about what is vain and immoral and cruel starts out with the premise that this belief is false.

No. It actually starts with the premise that it's real.

The "it" in question being the belief that Christ had power and offers eternal life. Obviously this belief exists. It is trivial to say the belief is "real." The only important question is whether it's true that he had/has such power. The rest is not important.

And evaluates the religion that's described.

Which is not important. All that matters is whether Christ had power, regardless of any subjective evaluation of this or that religion.

Same way people examine episodes on Star Trek: 'If that were true, that would make Kirk a mass-murderer.' That sort of thing.

So, to try to make sense of this analogy, "If it were true that Christ had power, or has power, and offers eternal life, that would -------- " What? That would make what? or would mean what?

You could argue that if there is any God whatever, that Entity has to be the worst mass murderer imaginable, because He/It has obviously slaughtered the maximum possible number of lives, i.e., ALL the lives that ever existed.

It disregards whether it might be true that Christ had power to give eternal life and offers it as a free gift through faith, and begins with the premise that this must be false, i.e., he had no such power and offers no such thing.

No, it begins with examining the religion that's described by the Faithful and asking, what sort of sick shit is this?

Literally, what you're saying is that Christ does have power and saves those who believe in him, gives them eternal life -- and you're just calling it all "sick shit" -- or that's your description of this. So, even if they live forever in the "Kingdom of God," it is "sick shit."

And you agree that Jesus did heal people, so the blind gained their sight etc., and all this healing was sick shit. So it's all true, but you're just describing it as sick shit.

It doesn't matter if Jesus can get us into salvation, if we recognize that salvation requires kissing a monster's ass.

Even if you call it "kissing a monster's ass," why doesn't it matter if Jesus can get us into salvation? Also, if he really did heal those victims who came to him, that also didn't matter? Why didn't it matter? Being cured of blindness or a deformity or an illness doesn't matter?

It would make some sense to just say you don't believe it's true, but to say it wouldn't matter even if it were true would mean in effect that nothing matters in life. So there is no point to ever doing anything or hoping or wanting or trying, because even if you succeed, it doesn't really matter. Nothing matters.

But this might be incorrect. Maybe he really did have such power and really does offer eternal life. There is some evidence that he had life-giving power.

There's no evidence beyond stories.

The same kind of evidence we have for virtually all historical facts. It's all based on "stories" -- i.e., claims or reports by someone about what happened.

Suspicious stories of unknown origin, . . .

The only "suspicious" element is the miracle events, and you reject these based on the dogmatic premise that no such reports can ever be true. Nothing in science or reason requires this premise.

. . . that are not terribly dissimilar from other stories about other demigods.

But you never give an example of those other stories. You really can't show any similarity, and so you never give an example. And whereas we have documented reports of the Jesus events, near to the time they reportedly happened, there is no such evidence attesting to the "other stories" you're referring to.

And even healing or resurrecting power is not evidence that he can grant eternal life to the soul, once the body fails.

But it indicates additional life, i.e., postponing death (healing), and also resumption of life (resurrection) beyond death. It isn't necessary to get bogged down in theories about the "soul" (though there's no harm in it). These theories do not settle the question whether Jesus had such power or not.

Healing the body is not evidence that souls exist.

But it means prolonged life, or preservation or continuation of life. Life-giving power. That's what matters, not abstract theories about "souls."

Big logical failure.

No, worrying about whether "souls" exist is not logically required. Maybe they do exist, but it's not imperative to resolve the questions about "souls" in order to judge whether Jesus had this life-giving power.

So this argument cannot qualify as a "reason to reject Christianity" because it starts out with the PREMISE that the belief being considered is false.

False. It starts out with the PREMISE that it's real and examines the consequences of that religion.

But the consequences of a belief are not important.

A belief is judged not by the consequences of it if someone holds that belief, but by whether it's true or false.

E.g., evolution belief is not judged by the possibility that it might lead to bad consequences, such as eugenics, which it has led to, but by whether it's true that humans evolved from lower life forms along with other animals.

And those who attack evolution because it led to some eugenics bad deeds are not looking at the biological facts but are just assuming evolution is false. That evolution is false is their premise, and then they condemn it for some bad consequences it led to. But those bad consequences don't answer whether evolution is true or false.

And hypothetical consequences of Christ belief do not answer whether Christ belief is true or false.

Your entire dismissal of the argument is based on not understanding the argument, and attacking a strawman version of it.

"The argument" basically is: Christianity is false because it leads to some bad consequences. Or, the argument "starts out with the PREMISE that it's real and examines the consequences of that religion" (which consequences are said to be bad).

And the same argument says: Evolution is false because it leads to some bad consequences, such as eugenics.

Or: Humanism is false because it led to Marxism, which led to Bolshevism and tens of millions of murders in Russia, and to Maoism and tens of millions of murders in China.

I.e., it's false because it leads to some bad consequences.

Logical fallacy BINGO!

The fallacy is: it must be false if believing it leads to some bad consequences -- Yes that's a fallacy. You can't "evaluate" evolution belief by showing that some evolution believers did some bad things because of their evolution belief.

Nor evaluate Christ belief by showing that some Christ believers did something bad because of their Christ belief.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We don't know if God sends anyone to Hell. If he does not, then fine -- stop worrying about it! But if he does, all your DISbelieving it won't stop him from sending them to Hell. So, what's the point of preaching your theories about where God should or should not send someone?

You are so slippery. I mean, classic Lumpy.
Your assertion, all the way back in that December of last year, was that we didn't have to know everything about a religion in order to accept it.
You picked a religion that seemed believable to you, THEN you chose it and started to learn about it. You said that was how it was supposed to be done.

I said the religion that's offered up by Christainity is not something i find particularly believable.

I even gave the reason i don't find it believable.

You completely ignore the argument you were offering, that this was a response to.

You pretend i'm saying something completely different and argue against a stance i have not taken.

The fallacy is: it must be false if believing it leads to some bad consequences

No, it's a far simpler fallacy at play here, Lumpy. You're tilting at strawmen.
Rather old strawmen, for that matter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, Lumpy, you're just spinning your wheels on the topic, spreading untruths in your own favor and more untruths about what anyone else is actually saying.

Toodles.

 

[DBT]

We don't know if God sends anyone to Hell.

If you do believe in the existence of the god of the bible you should also believe what the bible tells you about the nature and character of its god....a god who sends people to eternal torment for merely lacking a belief in the existence of its god held on the principle of irrational faith.

 

[James Brown]

We don't know if God sends anyone to Heaven, either.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How did Jesus Christ get into the historical record at all? What was special about him? not rich, not powerful, not famous at the time

Independent accounts and/or artifacts help establish the existence of historic personages . . .

Prior to 1500 AD there are virtually no historic personages whose existence is established by accounts or artifacts except those persons who were rich or powerful.

So even if it's true that accounts and artifacts help establish the existence of historic persons, all these persons are the rich or powerful only.

If we include under "powerful" those who led a successful army, like Spartacus, there might not be one exception to this rule. Or, even if there might be a half dozen exceptions, it's still a good rule: In general, written accounts or artifacts do NOT help establish the existence of historical figures other than the tiny few who were rich or powerful.

(This is mainly prior to modern times, e.g., prior to 1500 AD or so. Today there are maybe a few who get into the historical record who are not rich or powerful. But the mention of them is extremely sparse.)

EXCEPTIONS? -- Possibly a few prophets or sages would qualify as exceptions? Maybe John the Baptist? Not Socrates, not Solon. What about Gandhi? No, not Gandhi, because he did gain leadership of a powerful political movement. And he originated from the top 1% of the social hierarchy, or at least the top 5%.

Even if there are some exceptions of this kind, they at least all had long careers allowing them time to influence people and win disciples. Whereas Jesus got into the historical record without having a long career. This makes him unique in a way that is inexplicable.

In all history, Jesus Christ seems to be the absolute unique single case of someone appearing in the historical record who had no connection to wealth or power, i.e., political power, and for whom there is more than just a couple lines of text, and yet who also had an extremely short public career.

What other case is there?

. . . and the occurrence of historic events.

Only events involving the rich and powerful. We have no accounts of historic events, or artifacts attesting to events other than those involving the rich or powerful.

The gospels are lacking in both departments.

No, Josephus is one "independent" source that confirms events in the gospels. Like the death of John the Baptist. And Tacitus confirms the execution of Jesus during the reign of Tiberias.

However, it's true that there is little external confirmation of the events in the gospels.

But the people and events in the gospels are a kind that are never recorded or preserved in any form, because they had no recognized status or connection to the richest 1% or the most powerful 1%. It is a bizarre and extreme anomaly that we have any account at all of Jesus and his followers. That we have anything at all defies all precedent and stands alone and uniquely as one of the most unexplained mysteries of history. (Though if the Jesus miracle acts really happened, that would explain it.)

The figures of the Hebrew Bible, by contrast, were all from the top 1% of that society, and/or they were all long-established celebrated icons of the culture at the time they were first incorporated into the Hebrew scriptures. I.e., they were not sudden celebrities who popped up in the literature in only a few decades (as in the case of Jesus).

So it is very amazing that we have written accounts about Jesus, who had no generally-recognized status or tradition behind him when the written accounts of him first appeared. And also had no connection to wealth or political power. This defies all historical precedent.

Independent accounts and/or artifacts help establish the existence of historic personages . . .

The term "Independent accounts" is obviously a reiteration of the nonsensical notion that the N.T. gospel accounts are not authentic sources for determining the historicity of Jesus and the events reported there.

There is no basis for this exclusion of these documents. Even if there are some discrepancies, and even if one or two documents quoted from another, this in no way undermines their credibility in establishing the historical facts of what happened.

ALL documents, especially from so long ago, contain difficulties and have to be questioned critically. But none are excluded from helping to establish the existence of the historical persons and events. You cannot select out certain documents you don't like and pretend that these are excluded from the historical record based upon your subjective impulse. Or on the pretext that they are not "independent" according to someone's arbitrary and ideology-based standard for independence.

The gospel accounts are as reliable and legitimate as any others, with the only qualifier that we need more than one source for miracle events. Since we do have the extra sources, it's reasonable to believe these accounts, including the miracle acts of Jesus, though one still has doubt.

 

[atrib]

In all history, Jesus Christ seems to be the absolute unique single case of someone appearing in the historical record who had no connection to wealth or power, i.e., political power, and for whom there is more than just a couple lines of text, and yet who also had an extremely short public career.

Except for the fact that Jesus never appears in the historical record. No historian of that time recorded a single miracle performed by this person, or even that he existed.

The gospel accounts are as reliable and legitimate as any others, with the only qualifier that we need more than one source for miracle events. Since we do have the extra sources, it's reasonable to believe these accounts, including the miracle acts of Jesus, though one still has doubt.

Repeating a lie over and over is not magically going to make it true. Making up shit and passing it off as educated commentary may work with Christians, but it doesn't work with us.

 

[skepticalbip]

How did Jesus Christ get into the historical record at all? What was special about him? not rich, not powerful, not famous at the time .

That is a strange and misleading question. It assumes what you want to prove. There is no Jesus Christ in the historical record. There is only mention of such a person written by four anonymous religious authors quite a while after the supposed person died and they all apparently quoted, or misquoted, the same common oral tradition source. Perhaps you could cite the historian who mentions Jesus since you keep asserting that he is a historical figure?

There is, however, records of hundreds if not thousands of people in the historical record from poets, writers, philosophers, mathematicians, inventors, leaders, etc. - you know, people who actually lived and did things noteworthy of being included in historical record.

ETA:
Now for common people who's philosophy was the basis of religion that were recorded in the historical record we have Lao-Tzu and Confucius. Lao-Tzu was a fairly common archivist and Confucius worked as a shepherd, cowherd, clerk, and a book-keeper. And then you could throw in Mohammed but then, in his later life, he did lead an army. Then Buddha was born wealthy but would likely not have been in the historical record if he hadn't given it all up and lived a life of poverty and teaching.

 

[DBT]

No, Josephus is one "independent" source that confirms events in the gospels. Like the death of John the Baptist. And Tacitus confirms the execution of Jesus during the reign of Tiberias.

Do you have evidence to back these claims? Evidence that Josephus, for example, does indeed ''confirm events in the gospels?''

 

[atrib]

No, Josephus is one "independent" source that confirms events in the gospels. Like the death of John the Baptist. And Tacitus confirms the execution of Jesus during the reign of Tiberias.

Do you have evidence to back these claims? Evidence that Josephus, for example, does indeed ''confirm events in the gospels?''

He does not. He has been asked to provide documentation for this claim many times, and he has not done so. He is making up shit, and he will not respond to your post because he has nothing to add. He will simply keep repeating the claim, as if it has not been refuted many dozens of times.

There is no historical documentation to support the Biblical claims of Jesus performing miracles, especially the story of Jesus rising up from the dead to float up into the sky. The entire premise of the Christian faith hinges on Jesus' resurrection and ascent into Heaven. Lumpy claims that these magical acts were witnessed by many people, which is what triggered the growth of Christianity. But he cannot explain why no contemporary historian saw fit to record such unusual events. It is not like corpses turn into zombies and start flying all the time.

We are now 80 pages into this thread and Lumpy will not touch this claim with a 10-foot pole. He will not respond to anyone asking for evidence to support Jesus' resurrection and magical flying acts. That tells us a lot about the character and integrity of Lumpy's testimony here.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The miracle accounts of Jesus do meet a higher standard of evidence than is required for ordinary historical events.

What is the evidence for anything in history that you believe? Do you believe there are any historical events that really did happen? What is your evidence that they really happened? Why do the Jesus miracle events have to be put into a separate category that requires a different quality of evidence than what is required for other historical events?

This isn't to say that the evidence for the Jesus miracles is so strong that they should be included in standard history textbooks. Rather, the evidence is enough that one can reasonably believe that these events really did happen. There is still doubt, while at the same time there are historical facts that are more certain and are presented in the history books as accepted historical fact.

The Jesus miracle healings are credible enough to be mentioned in a history book alongside other reported events which cannot be verified. A good history book would not judge that these events did or did not happen but would leave it an open question. Many ufo stories are also in this category.

It's based on the basic notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But this is just a slogan. What is required is EXTRA evidence. I.e., more than only 1 source or witness. Perhaps even 3 or 4. Also, if there are contrary sources or witnesses claiming the opposite, then even further sources or witnesses may be necessary.

But the quality of the evidence doesn't have to be any different. All that is necessary is a greater QUANTITY of evidence for extraordinary claims. Not a higher quality of evidence.

If the claim that somebody is making is trivial and ordinary, then the evidence required to accept it can be trivial and ordinary. If someone says "Yesterday, I had a beer with my buddy Frank at Joe's bar" then the mere fact that there is a person named Frank, a drink called beer and a place named Joe's bar are all that's required to accept that as a factual claim. Sure, the guy might be lying and is pretending that he was out for beer with a friend to cover up the affair that he was having because he didn't want you telling his wife about it or something like that, but the claim itself is trivial and ordinary enough that it can just be accepted with a trivial amount of evidence.

Fine, the AMOUNT of evidence is what matters, not the quality of the evidence. The evidence does not have to be "extraordinary," but just has to be a greater amount than for ordinary claims. An additional witness, or 2 or 3 additional witnesses, or sources.

If however, he told you "Yesterday, I smoked crack with my buddy President Obama at the White House", then that requires you to accept that Obama smokes crack, that this guy is good enough friends with him to join in and that he was in the White House yesterday. If there are no confirmatory reports of the President's drug use, the guy has never mentioned so much as having met Obama before and the two of you are in a town in Michigan and not in DC, then he's going to need to provide far more than a mere statement to back up the claim to a level where it could be accepted as a factual one.

Several statements, i.e, from several separate witnesses, would suffice to back up the claim. Possibly 3 witnesses would be enough. And there are degrees of belief, or of probability and certainty. Even if 3 witnesses might not be enough to make it certain, it might be enough that you could reasonably believe it, with hesitation, or tentatively, still having some doubt. This evidence, testimony from witnesses, would not have to be "extraordinary" evidence, but just a larger quantity of evidence than for an ordinary claim.

Claims of magical powers are extraordinary claims. That means that in order to accept them as factual, the accompanying level of evidence must be similarly extraordinary.

But it only has to be an extra AMOUNT of evidence -- ordinary evidence, the same kind as for ordinary claims, but simply a greater degree or quantity of such evidence. Additional witnesses or sources are sufficient to give credibility to what would otherwise be rejected as too unlikely.

It puts in a different category than other historical claims.

Yes, but this only means that the amount of evidence needed is greater.

If some ancient document is unearthed which says "In 32 AD, the Roman Governor of Capua, Marcus Seppuria, executed the Hittite slave Andronius for striking his master", that's a claim which probably doesn't have a lot to back it up beyond it merely having been said. It is, however, consistant with other facts which we know, such as that there was a Roman city called Capua, it had a Governor, there were slaves at the time, they would have been executed for doing things such as this and the Romans are known to have kept fairly good records about what their government officials did. When that's coupled with a dearth of reasons why anyone would bother to lie about this sort of thing, then you're on solid ground to accept it as a factual record of some slave getting executed.

Some guy going around healing people, however, is not consistent with anything else. That makes it require a far higher standard of evidence than other historical claims.

And the four gospel accounts are a much higher standard than we have for virtually all other claims of "miracle" acts, and also a much higher standard than for many ordinary events which we routinely accept. Many ordinary events are reported in one source only, whereas the Jesus miracle acts are reported in at least four.

Furthermore, many events routinely accepted as fact are reported only in a source which is separated from the time of the event by 100 years, or even longer. Whereas the gospel accounts are much closer in time to the reported events.

This does constitute a "far higher standard of evidence than other historical claims" in the case of many of the historical facts that we routinely accept.

Maybe Jesus went around healing people, maybe America won WWII because of the one guy who went through their super soldier program knocked out Hitler, maybe the reason that there aren't any Frost Giants around is because Odin killed them all and maybe the reason we're not all kneeling before Xenu is because some scrappy aliens managed to trap him in a volcano for eternity.

But we have little or no evidence for any of these latter, whereas we do have at least four documents attesting to the miracle acts of Jesus which appeared near to the time of the alleged events. So the much higher standard of evidence needed is met, so that these acts of Jesus are far more credible than the examples you're suggesting here of Odin and Xenu, etc.

All of those could potentially be true, . . .

But there's no evidence for them, whereas there is evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus. These acts are reported in multiple documents near to the time that they allegedly happened, whereas there is no such evidence for your examples above.

If you want to offer a comparison, give us examples of something for which there is some evidence.

. . . but all of them are inconsistent with everything else we know about history.

Highly unusual, or seemingly impossible, highly unlikely. But the miracle acts of Jesus do not contradict anything from history -- rather, they are just a departure from the norm. And so extra evidence is needed. And we have that extra evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus, whereas we do not have it for examples like Odin and other myths.

Documents reporting that something happened, claiming it was witnessed, and appearing relatively near to the time of the alleged event, are evidence that it did happen. And four documents = much more evidence than only one.

All documents, near to the time in question, must be included in the record and used as evidence. You cannot arbitrarily exclude certain select documents simply because they contain something unusual or something you don't like. Rather, they are included and subjected to proper scrutiny with all the other documents.

Far more extraordinary evidence is needed in order to accept any of these claims than is required for other claims that are consistent with other things that we know.

Yes, a greater quantity of evidence is required, and we do have such extra evidence. For ordinary events, it is sufficient to have one source only, and that separated by 100 or even 150 years from the actual reported events. But for the miracle acts of Jesus, we have at least 4 sources which are only 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 years separated from the reported events. And it is demonstrable that parts of these sources are based on an earlier source probably less than 30 years separated from the events. For that period of history, this proximity of the accounts to the actual events is unusually close. So we do have the "far higher standard of evidence" needed.

If you're demanding PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt, then no, we don't have that. What we have is sufficient evidence to justify reasonable belief, or reasonable hope, that the miracle events did happen, and thus that the life-giving power of Jesus, as depicted in the gospel accounts, is something real and not just fantasy or superstition as most miracle legends are.

 

[none]

It's based on the basic notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But this is just a slogan.
...

yeah and it completely has no answer by you so it affects the credibility of what you say. that you have no credibility because you have no evidence that surmounts skepticism of what you preach.
"don't eat yellow snow", "15 will get you 20", "Good from far, far from good" those are slogans that also mean something that you should consider.
the Bible is full of slogans, none of which lend credibility to the story and neither they should because "they are just slogans", right? yep.
like "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.", what a lame ass slogan with no meaningful content, don't you agree?

 

[Atheos]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not just a slogan it's a way of life for everyone except the gullible.

Christianity was founded by a charismatic individual deceiving as many gullible folks as he could into believing he was channeling a heavenly voice. Everything -- every scrap of evidence we have is completely consistent with that premise. We have many modern examples of gullible people believing insane claims. Marshall Applewhite, L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, J.Z. Knight ... the list goes on and on.

Lumpenproletariat, your arguments are as devoid of substance as the original myth they're trying to support.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's based on the basic notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But this is just a slogan. What is required is EXTRA evidence. I.e., more than only 1 source or witness. Perhaps even 3 or 4. Also, if there are contrary sources or witnesses claiming the opposite, then even further sources or witnesses may be necessary.

But the quality of the evidence doesn't have to be any different. All that is necessary is a greater QUANTITY of evidence for extraordinary claims. Not a higher quality of evidence.

Really? Consider a case where your five year old kid comes in and tells you that there is a dog taking a shit in your front yard. Then four adult strangers come in and tell you that a unicorn has set up a lemonaid stand in your driveway and is selling lemonaid for two cents per glass. Which do you think needs more and better evidence before you would believe it?

I'll give you a hint. One is a common everyday event so requires little to be believable even though it was only a five year old kid who informed you. The other is extraordinary so needs extraordinary evidence before it would be believed - a unicorn selling lemonaid for two cents a glass.... really who would believe that without better evidence even though four adult strangers swore it was so.

 

[bilby]

But this is just a slogan. What is required is EXTRA evidence. I.e., more than only 1 source or witness. Perhaps even 3 or 4. Also, if there are contrary sources or witnesses claiming the opposite, then even further sources or witnesses may be necessary.

But the quality of the evidence doesn't have to be any different. All that is necessary is a greater QUANTITY of evidence for extraordinary claims. Not a higher quality of evidence.

Really? Consider a case where your five year old kid comes in and tells you that there is a dog taking a shit in your front yard. Then four adult strangers come in and tell you that a unicorn has set up a lemonaid stand in your driveway and is selling lemonaid for two cents per glass. Which do you think needs more and better evidence before you would believe it?

I'll give you a hint. One is a common everyday event so requires little to be believable even though it was only a five year old kid who informed you. The other is extraordinary so needs extraordinary evidence before it would be believed - a unicorn selling lemonaid for two cents a glass.... really who would believe that without better evidence even though four adult strangers swore it was so.

Yeah, that's crazy. Unicorns are sharp businessmen, they would know that the market will pay at least fifty cents a glass, and set the price accordingly.

 

[atrib]

It's based on the basic notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But this is just a slogan. What is required is EXTRA evidence. I.e., more than only 1 source or witness. Perhaps even 3 or 4. Also, if there are contrary sources or witnesses claiming the opposite, then even further sources or witnesses may be necessary.

But the quality of the evidence doesn't have to be any different. All that is necessary is a greater QUANTITY of evidence for extraordinary claims. Not a higher quality of evidence.

Wrong. If you are going to make claims about events that have never occurred in the recorded history of our species, you need extraordinary evidence. If you are going to make the claim that a man rose up from the dead and floated up into the sky, you will have to support the claim with extraordinary evidence in order for the claim to be considered credible. One or two anonymous sources who were simply repeating hearsay does NOT qualify as extraordinary evidence.

Fine, the AMOUNT of evidence is what matters, not the quality of the evidence. The evidence does not have to be "extraordinary," but just has to be a greater amount than for ordinary claims. An additional witness, or 2 or 3 additional witnesses, or sources.

Wrong.

And the four gospel accounts are a much higher standard than we have for virtually all other claims of "miracle" acts, and also a much higher standard than for many ordinary events which we routinely accept. Many ordinary events are reported in one source only, whereas the Jesus miracle acts are reported in at least four.

The gospels are evidence that some people of the time believed these claims. They are based on hearsay from anonymous sources. The gospels are also wrong in many of the claims they make about our reality. The gospels cannot be counted on as being reliable.

Furthermore, many events routinely accepted as fact are reported only in a source which is separated from the time of the event by 100 years, or even longer. Whereas the gospel accounts are much closer in time to the reported events.

Not so with supernatural events. Name one instance in human history where historians believe that people rose up from the dead and floated up into the sky. Just one.

This does constitute a "far higher standard of evidence than other historical claims" in the case of many of the historical facts that we routinely accept.

Wrong.

But we have little or no evidence for any of these latter, whereas we do have at least four documents attesting to the miracle acts of Jesus which appeared near to the time of the alleged events. So the much higher standard of evidence needed is met, so that these acts of Jesus are far more credible than the examples you're suggesting here of Odin and Xenu, etc.

The documents are copied from each other.
The authors of the documents are not named.
The authors did not witness any of the events themselves, they heard about them from anonymous people on the street.
The documents contain many factual errors.
FAIL!

But there's no evidence for them, whereas there is evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus. These acts are reported in multiple documents near to the time that they allegedly happened, whereas there is no such evidence for your examples above.

Name one historical document that corroborates the supernatural stories of the Bible. Name one historical document that reports the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his magic floating act in the sky. There are none.

Highly unusual, or seemingly impossible, highly unlikely. But the miracle acts of Jesus do not contradict anything from history -- rather, they are just a departure from the norm. And so extra evidence is needed. And we have that extra evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus, whereas we do not have it for examples like Odin and other myths.

There is exactly as much evidence to support the supernatural claims of the Bible as there is support the stories of Odin. None.

All documents, near to the time in question, must be included in the record and used as evidence. You cannot arbitrarily exclude certain select documents simply because they contain something unusual or something you don't like. Rather, they are included and subjected to proper scrutiny with all the other documents.

What scrutiny have you subjected the gospel accounts to? What historical sources have you considered that report on the supernatural stories of the Bible? Why are the gospels full of factual errors, and why should their supernatural claims considered credible? You are yet to answer any of these questions.

If you're demanding PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt, then no, we don't have that. What we have is sufficient evidence to justify reasonable belief, or reasonable hope, that the miracle events did happen, and thus that the life-giving power of Jesus, as depicted in the gospel accounts, is something real and not just fantasy or superstition as most miracle legends are.

The supernatural stories of the Bible are not credible. There are no independent historical accounts to support the magical stories.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Wow, what a discussion on religion.

I have a couple of quick questions for all those in these threads.

I noticed there is a lot of did this happen just as claimed and what do you have to prove it with.

Let me make a statement and we can build from there.

Religions are "societal road maps" that tells one how to interact with a specific sub-set of the populace. If you want to interact with Christians in their society you will need to study the christian religion. If you want to interact with the Islamic community then you will need to study the muslim religion.

Societies are like groups of people who share the same religious or lack thereof of religious beliefs.

Just as our society was founded on Judea-Christian principles derived from the bible ...............

These are principles of rights and wrongs as defined by societies as a whole.

The stories in these ancient manuscripts whether true or not are just as chinese proverbs that are meant to teach life lessons through childish parables so that even those of lower intelligence can understand the concepts.

Most religions claim one god whether it be the christian "God" that comprises the father, the sun, and the holy ghost or Islamism's "Allah / Mohammad " ................

When the christian shouts there is only one true god there is a muslim somewhere saying the same thing about Allah.

What you are to learn from religions are how to live in peace with your peers based on societaly approved behaviors.

So we don't need to prove them for them to teach you how to act socially acceptable in your peer system.

 

[James Brown]

I have a couple of quick questions for all those in these threads...

You didn't ask any questions.