120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lion IRC]

...I am not claiming that the Jesus story is made up.
I am claiming that the story being a made-up fiction is certainly a possibility for which believers have a burden to counter.

Hmmm... I need to unpack this carefully.

So you're not claiming it's actually made up.
You're claiming the possibility that it's (possibly) made up.
And it's that "possibility" of error (untruth) which you think should be the epistemic default position against which everyone else has the persuasive burden of proof - proving that it's impossible the Jesus claims were possibly made up.

I'm sorry, that just sounds like a long-winded way of saying you dont believe the claims.

I'd rather stick to the factum historicum and exegesis and Bayes theorem and reasonableness of motive, etc.

Aren't you just special pleading Keith&Co?

I shouldn't think so.
Are you really making an accusation? Where am i special pleading anything?

You are claiming the story is made up and expecting us to believe that without evidence.
That's special pleading. That's effectively the same as getting down on your knees and begging us to believe you because you can't actually prove that all Jesus stories are deliberately made up - fabricated, invented, lies, myths...

...Where's the post you think i've made a logical fallacy?
Can you support this, or are you just throwing out terms?

It's self-evident that you think your own (skeptical) position as against the historical claims about Jesus should be the default truth position. Why should I believe your special pleading assertion that divine beings can't do supernatural stuff?

 

[atrib]

...And, dirty little secret: there were quite a few events that never got mentioned by mainline historians, like about 99.9999999999% of all the events that happened. And everything they wrote was only about the rich and powerful, not about ordinary people.

Since Jesus was a person of no recognized status or repute during his lifetime, it is amazing that we have any mention of him at all in any historical document, i.e., the brief mention in Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus, who wrote only about people in high positions of power and military conflicts, and certainly about no one whose public career was less than 10 years.

There is probably not one other example of anyone ever mentioned in any history source, prior to 1500 or so, whose public career was so short.

Excellent point.
What did Jesus do to deserve any permanent mention in written form?
If He was a fake or an imaginary character, He should have disappeared from oral tradition long before any secular historian picked up a pen to write about this Rabbi from...
...from where!

Excellent point. What did Hanuman do to deserve any permanent mention in written form?
If He was a fake or an imaginary character, He should have disappeared from oral tradition long before any secular historian picked up a pen to write about this monkey from...
...from where!

There are over 300 sources for the story of the flying monkey god Hanuman, which is about 300 more than the tales of the magic flying zombie Jesus has in its support. How many modern historian believe that the Hanuman stories are real? Do you believe that the Hanuman stories are real?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I think you can prove a negative. Eg. (Positive) There is ice in Antartica. (Negative) There is no ice in Antarctica

In this case, you wouldn't be proving the negative, you'd be disproving it. And quite easily, too.
A better example would be the claim: "there is no other planet in the universe where sentient life exists". Until you've checked every planet there is, you can't prove that claim with 100% certainty. Likewise with Tom Sawyer's "mermaids" claim. Until we've mapped every square inch of all the oceans, we cannot say with 100% certainty that there are no mermaids. But we can say, from what we know about marine life, that it's highly unlikely that there are.

 

[atrib]

Hmmm... I need to unpack this carefully.

So you're not claiming it's actually made up.
You're claiming the possibility that it's (possibly) made up.
And it's that "possibility" of error (untruth) which you think should be the epistemic default position against which everyone else has the persuasive burden of proof - proving that it's impossible the Jesus claims were possibly made up.

I'm sorry, that just sounds like a long-winded way of saying you dont believe the claims.

I'd rather stick to the factum historicum and exegesis and Bayes theorem and reasonableness of motive, etc.

Aren't you just special pleading Keith&Co?

I shouldn't think so.
Are you really making an accusation? Where am i special pleading anything?

You are claiming the story is made up and expecting us to believe that without evidence.
That's special pleading. That's effectively the same as getting down on your knees and begging us to believe you because you can't actually prove that all Jesus stories are deliberately made up - fabricated, invented, lies, myths...

...Where's the post you think i've made a logical fallacy?
Can you support this, or are you just throwing out terms?

It's self-evident that you think your own (skeptical) position as against the historical claims about Jesus should be the default truth position. Why should I believe your special pleading assertion that divine beings can't do supernatural stuff?

Why the fuck should anyone believe a story about a corpse that came back to life and then flew off into space under its own power? Would you believe this story if it were not in the Bible? Can you point us to a single instance in the history of our species where such a thing has happened and is believed to be credible by the majority of modern historians?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Hmmm... I need to unpack this carefully.

So you're not claiming it's actually made up.
You're claiming the possibility that it's (possibly) made up.
And it's that "possibility" of error (untruth) which you think should be the epistemic default position against which everyone else has the persuasive burden of proof - proving that it's impossible the Jesus claims were possibly made up.

It's those who wrote the story, and those who propagate it, who are making the claim here. Asking them to demonstrate that it's true is not "claiming it's made up", it's simply asking for evidence to support the claim.

You are claiming the story is made up and expecting us to believe that without evidence.
That's special pleading. That's effectively the same as getting down on your knees and begging us to believe you because you can't actually prove that all Jesus stories are deliberately made up - fabricated, invented, lies, myths...

No, it's not. It's just asking you to provide evidence for the story you claim is true. If I told you my brother can blow flames out of his ears while floating six feet off the floor, would you say "I'd better believe that because I can't prove it's not true" or would you ask me to provide evidence for it ... or maybe even just dismiss it out of hand as something impossible under the laws of physics?

It's self-evident that you think your own (skeptical) position as against the historical claims about Jesus should be the default truth position. Why should I believe your special pleading assertion that divine beings can't do supernatural stuff?

Skepticism should be the default position on claims which defy the laws of physics. And until it's been demonstrated that there is such a thing as "divine beings", there's no real basis for a discussion on what they can or can't do. If I told you my 65-foot long green dragon can fly, breathe fire and topple buildings with a swipe of his wings, your first reaction should be to question the very existence of my (or any other) 65-foot long green dragon, not to assume that it probably can because it's a 65-foot long green dragon.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Why the fuck should anyone believe a story about a corpse that came back to life and then flew off into space under its own power?

The thread title indicates that the real question is...why SHOULDNT you?
God is the wrong topic to be wrong about.

Instead of asking yourself why, you should be explaining it to me. (120 reasons)

Note that the Resurrection claims of Christianity relate to divine entities.
You seem to have a category error going on here conflating divine Jesus Christ with ordinary & mortal Bill Smith or Harry Jones or Tom Brown who - I agree - don't go around performing miracles or being raised from the dead.

Do you agree that, given God's hypothetical existence, apparently supernatural events would be quite within the realms of probability?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hmmm... I need to unpack this carefully.

So you're not claiming it's actually made up.

Close. In this thread, I'm not actually claiming that it's made up.

You're claiming the possibility that it's (possibly) made up.

I'm saying that for all that Lumpy rejects it, his justifications for that rejection fail to compel. It remains possible that it's just a made up story. There is an advantage to it being a made-up story in that we would not have to rewrite any of the laws of the universe in order to explain it.

And it's that "possibility" of error (untruth) which you think should be the epistemic default position against which everyone else has the persuasive burden of proof - proving that it's impossible the Jesus claims were possibly made up.

Now, you're just making that shit up. I have not said anything about what anyone else should hold as a position.

I'm sorry, that just sounds like a long-winded way of saying you dont believe the claims.

I'm sorry that you're reading too much into it.

You are right, i do not believe the claims, but i am not using that fact as the basis of rejecting Lumpy's piss poor arguments.

You are claiming the story is made up and expecting us to believe that without evidence.

No, I am not claiming that it is a made up story.
I am stating that it could be fictional and stating thLumpy's justifications fail to exclude the possibility in any meaningful way.

...Where's the post you think i've made a logical fallacy?

It's self-evident that you think your own (skeptical) position as against the historical claims about Jesus should be the default truth position.

So, you expect me to believe I'm special pleading but you cannot provide evidence to support this claim...
Are you intentionally hypocritical or trying to make a point, here?

Why should I believe your special pleading assertion that divine beings can't do supernatural stuff?

Where in the fuck did i ever say that supernatural beings can't do supernatural stuff?
That's their JOB! Their nature. It's exactly what they do.
Whenever you want to stop arguing against the voices in your head and deal with what's actually being/been posted, that'd be interesting to see.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...Why the fuck should anyone believe a story about a corpse that came back to life and then flew off into space under its own power?

The thread title indicates that the real question is...why SHOULDNT you?
God is the wrong topic to be wrong about.

This would be true, if i had any real reason to fear the consequences of being wrong about any of the deities.
But then again, as a sailor, sirens are the wrong topic to be wrong about. You could end up crashing on the rocks.
And as a parent, the boogeyman is something i need to be SURE about. Don't want to give the kids the wrong ideas about how to defend themselves from the boogeyman, do I?

Instead of asking yourself why, you should be explaining it to me. (120 reasons)

Um, no.
That's Kyroot's issue. Personally, i have some issues with his particular arguments. But he has never engaged me on those quibbles.
I have issues with Lumpy's arguments, and he sometimes gets around to engaging those...

 

[atrib]

...Why the fuck should anyone believe a story about a corpse that came back to life and then flew off into space under its own power?

The thread title indicates that the real question is...why SHOULDNT you?
God is the wrong topic to be wrong about.

Humans have invented tens of thousands of gods over the millennia. Most of these stories have died away, while some remain popular to this day. Many of these gods are claimed to possess supernatural powers, powers that defy the laws of the universe. You don't believe in any of these gods, save one, which I assume is the Christian god. Why don't you believe in any of the other gods? Because you are skeptical. You are a nonbeliever just like me, except for this one god story that has been burned into your consciousness and dominates your life. You have been indoctrinated into believing that a supernatural creature created an infinite universe just so humans could exist, cloned itself in human form to tell us about its existence, and then had this clone killed in a barbaric manner and then resurrected, just so its blood-lust could be satisfied and it could permit itself to forgive humans for being human. You live in fear of this super-creature, and spend your life bowing and scraping before its invisible form in the hopes it will spare you from an eternity of torture. What kind of life is that?

I don't believe in any gods because I have never found any of the stories to be convincing. I don't believe in your god because I recognize the Bible stories for what they really are, stories, made up by people who knew very little of the natural universe. I don't live in fear of being under constant surveillance or of barbaric retribution at the hands of an invisible creature that cannot be bothered to show its face. I understand that my existence in this universe is finite, and I try to make the most of my life as best I can. I am not scared of death and I don't need to turn to a fairy tale for solace and hope.

Note that the Resurrection claims of Christianity relate to divine entities.
You seem to have a category error going on here conflating divine Jesus Christ with ordinary & mortal Bill Smith or Harry Jones or Tom Brown who - I agree - don't go around performing miracles or being raised from the dead.

So ask this divine entity to show itself and demonstrate its powers. Should be trivial for a super-creature that can build universes and create life. Yet here you are, empty handed, all words and no action.

Do you agree that, given God's hypothetical existence, apparently supernatural events would be quite within the realms of probability?

Hypothetically, if I had a trillion dollars and a country to rule, I would have a harem of beautiful young women at my beck and call. Your faith is based on wishful thinking, unsupported by facts and reason. I don't do wishful thinking, because life is too short. Maybe it is time you got off your knees and started to live your life, instead of wasting your time dreaming homoerotic dreams of an eternity spent sucking on your imaginary god's divine cock.

 

[Lion IRC]

@Keith&Co. #1787

I believe I may have been misrepresenting you - sorry.

I mistakenly said... "You are claiming the [Jesus] story is made up and expecting us to believe that [it is made up] without evidence." ie. Without evidence to support your case.

I am certainly glad if that is NOT your belief. Perhaps I shouldn't collectivise atheists because clearly you don't believe they are made up stories.

And, I mistakenly thought you believed that there ought to be some 'default' epistemic position whereby the falsehood of Jesus stories should be the presumption until shown otherwise.

Lastly, I'm thankful to you for affirming that supernatural claims CAN be viewed differently if set against the background information - namely, whether or not God (or at least some Higher form of life) is behind those events.

No doubt if we were to go back in time and show our technological skills to cavemen, they would think we were gods/supernatural.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lastly, I'm thankful to you for affirming that supernatural claims CAN be viewed differently if set against the background information - namely, whether or not God (or at least some Higher form of life) is behind those events.

Sure.
This just isn't a 'can god make a donut so fat even he can't ice it' thread. It's also not a thread about which is the superior Starfleet captain or the stronger superhero.

It's largely become a thread about Lumpy insisting that the very nature of the Jesus story cycle is evidence that it can't be a made-up fiction, except for those parts that he doesn't find important to believe in. Lumpy wants to accept the healing miracles as evidence that we have souls, that Jesus has miraculous healing power which is direct evidence that he can also influence the afterlife disposition of souls, and he wants to feel that a minimal acceptance of these facts is enough to live eternally. He doesn't want to bother with anything telling him on how to live a moral life, and he's willing to accept that many parts of the gospels are made-up, but not important to how he'll achieve Heaven.

And his evidence for all this is that someone wrote it down, that's evidence, therefore he can consider believing in the writings a justified historical conclusion. He has all sorts of justifications for why similar or better-sourced divine stories aren't the same, aren't important, or aren't worth bothering with.

His is a very self-serving stance. And he makes up a rather quaint imaginary form of historical research to frame all this in, without knowing much of anything about how historians actually work or come to conclusions.

No doubt if we were to go back in time and show our technological skills to cavemen, they would think we were gods/supernatural.

Yes. i do believe much of religion is based on an imaginative attempt to explain the inexplicable.
However, I'd just note here that i can agree on the possible consequences of using a flare gun in front of witnesses in Ur WITHOUT necessarily agreeing that time travel is possible../

 

[Lion IRC]

You don't need time travel.
There have been many documented examples of aboriginal/indigenous people living the same way their Stone Age ancestors lived 10,000 years ago, who had until the 20th century, never seen so-called 'modern' people and when they meet they are awestruck. Numinous awe.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You don't need time travel.
There have been many documented examples of aboriginal/indigenous people living the same way their Stone Age ancestors lived 10,000 years ago, who had until the 20th century, never seen so-called 'modern' people and when they meet they are awestruck. Numinous awe.

And they did not turn out to be supernatural. Your point?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You don't need time travel.

Wow, what a way to miss my point...

 

[Lion IRC]

You don't need time travel.
There have been many documented examples of aboriginal/indigenous people living the same way their Stone Age ancestors lived 10,000 years ago, who had until the 20th century, never seen so-called 'modern' people and when they meet they are awestruck. Numinous awe.

And they did not turn out to be supernatural. Your point?

That if a Higher life form shows up and we are awestruck by their presence, we might mistake natural for supernatural. Then, once we calm down we would realise it's just a divine being - perfectly normal.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And they did not turn out to be supernatural. Your point?

That if a Higher life form shows up and we are awestruck by their presence, we might mistake natural for supernatural. Then, once we calm down we would realise it's just a divine being - perfectly normal.

Hilarious.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And they did not turn out to be supernatural. Your point?

That if a Higher life form shows up and we are awestruck by their presence, we might mistake natural for supernatural. Then, once we calm down we would realise it's just a divine being - perfectly normal.

Yes, we've all watched the Thor movie and are familiar with that subplot. Aliens pop in and throw a few lightning bolts around and primitive people mistakenly view their advanced technology for supernatural powers and worship them as gods.

That's not the plot of the Bible, though. The protagonist in that story isn't natural or normal. He's actually a supernatural being displaying supernatural abilities. The reason that one is supposed to be awestruck by Jesus's presence us because he's the son of God, not because we've made a mistake about who he is.

 

[atrib]

And they did not turn out to be supernatural. Your point?

That if a Higher life form shows up and we are awestruck by their presence, we might mistake natural for supernatural. Then, once we calm down we would realise it's just a divine being - perfectly normal.

What is a divine being? Are you saying god is an alien with advanced technology?

 

[Atheos]

This whole "advanced technology" thing is a red herring anyway. The  Nazca lines have been used by some folks to argue evidence of ancient space visitors, but the fact that the patterns can be seen from nearby foothills is enough to discount that theory for something more plausible. But at least it's physical evidence of something and therefore merits some explanation other than "people made up stories."

The large amount of mythology that includes miracles, god-men, explanations of mysteries and provisions for the control and manipulation of large groups of people is enough to safely place the Jesus mythos into the same category of storytelling. People don't walk on water, heal neurological conditions such as paralysis and blindness with a touch, transform water into wine, turn morsels into feasts for thousands or levitate off into the sky never to be seen again. The telling thing about all of these "miracles" is that they left behind not a single trace of their ever having happened. This is perfectly consistent with unfalsifiable storytelling such as the infamous "invisible dragon."

Lumpenproletariat has spent page upon page throwing up clouds of dust trying to point out anything unique about the development of the Jesus myth and arguing that these unique aspects are more parsimoniously explained by the miracles actually happening than people making up stories. It's laughable. There's nothing impossible about someone making up stories, convincing people to believe them, influencing folks to write them down and copy them. There's everything impossible about actually turning water into wine, walking on the storm-tossed water of lake Galilee and levitating unassisted off into the sky never to be seen again.

People make up stories, get people to believe and copy them today and in more recent history all the time. There are of course the big examples of Mohammad and Joseph Smith but there are hordes of others. Lumpenproletariat must therefore draw ever tighter sharpshooter bullseyes around his favorite myth by bringing in such irrelevant things as the invention of the printing press and completely made-up shit like anonymous bystanders.

The point of this whole discussion is whether or not there is any evidence that requires further explanation. There isn't. Just as the nearby foothills are adequate explanation for the Nazca lines, the ease with which thousands (even millions) of people can be duped into believing the most absurd and bizarre claims with little or no evidence is sufficient to explain the early development of Christianity.

 

[Lion IRC]

That if a Higher life form shows up and we are awestruck by their presence, we might mistake natural for supernatural. Then, once we calm down we would realise it's just a divine being - perfectly normal.

What is a divine being? Are you saying god is an alien with advanced technology?

Now we are getting somewhere.

What if God really IS a Higher life form - 'alien' to us in the sense that a place you might call 'heaven' is just another dimension of space/time? It wasn't Christianity that proposed the idea of multiverse.

What is so problematic about the idea that such a Being could have such extraordinary knowledge that He could exercise free volition over matter at the molecular level in a way we have yet to master. Isn't it true that we are only just beginning to glimpse the weirdness of quantum particles?

Death has been described as the last great unexplored land. But what if death is just a type of 'singularity'? A space/time portal or wormhole to another dimension? And what if the afterlife was a placebo effect whereby 'belief' became a factor in the ability of the soul to 'survive'?