120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[GenesisNemesis]

. Isn't it true that we are only just beginning to glimpse the weirdness of quantum particles?

Yes, but if you're going to use science to attempt to justify your views, you also have to use the scientific method to be logically consistent, and you can't just start making wild speculations. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Lion IRC]

Agreed.

But AFAICT science is doing a bang-up job of discovering more 'gaps' than it fills with answers.

Cue God of the Gaps....

Science discovered the Big Bang. Science discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe. Science discovered that we don't - and probably won't EVER - be able to make the technology needed to fill the current known gaps in our knowledge. (We can't build a bigger, better Hadron Colider and the universe will eventually expand to the point that we will no longer be able to obtain observational data ABOUT the universe.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

But again, this is not a thread about the nature of gods.
This is a thread about the credibility of Christain claims that they know what they're talking about when they say that a particular god-concept exists, and they know what he/she/it wants from us and how to go about providing that.

So, evidence towards that god or those gods would be appropriate here. Direct evidence to counter kyroot's claims would be appropriate, or good logic to counter the logic of kyroot's arguments. And any reason at all to think that Lumpenproletariat can tell his ass from a hole in the record, that would be appropriate AND timely.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well a good starting point in the case for particularly Christian theism is the plausible existence of a Higher life form.

That's just getting to first base.

If you are prepared to grant that premise - for the sake of the argument - then the next step is from theism to monotheism. Are we there yet?

Are you prepared to concede that (logically) there can only be One maximally great Being? (As opposed to one god creating a universe and another god uncreating it then the first one gets annoyed and recreates it again....)

There's no point attempting an apologetic defense of Christianity specifically if all the objections merely revert back to;
....oh, yeah well there's no evidence for any gods at all so there - take that Christians!

I agree that many philosophically generic arguments for God(s) and purported evidences could equally point to Thor or Odin or Zeus or Osiris. But if you grant the possible existence of divinity, biblical monotheism is much easier to defend than any alternatives. Likewise the evidence, such as we have, is more consistent with a personal loving God in accordance with Judeo-Christian theology than for any competing theology.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well a good starting point in the case for particularly Christian theism is the plausible existence of a Higher life form.

That's just getting to first base.

But a lot of apologists use that in a bait and switch tactic. Hypothesize that a supernatural form could possibly exist and then somewhere they shift to proceeding from the assumption that it exists.
Not interested.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well then debating with you the defensibility of one form of theism over another is a little bit premature. Similarly, it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone like you to feign interest in such a debate. (See Courtiers Reply)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well then debating the defensibility of one form of theism over another with you is a little bit premature.

Dude, if you wanna go back to the OP, follow kyroot's link, one of his several hundred objections to Christainity might be that divine beings cannot exist, for whatever justification he feels is warranted. Feel free to post your objections to that.
Kyroot's just unlikely to respond. He hasn't hardly responded none, anyhow.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Someone would have to help me appreciate in a meaningful way how something "supernatural" is not natural, meaning how it defies what we know about "natural," if that makes sense. I cannot get my head around how that would operate.

It seems to me that everything natural is quite supernatural. I don't really see a difference.

 

[Atheos]

Well a good starting point in the case for particularly Christian theism is the plausible existence of a Higher life form.

That's just getting to first base.

If you are prepared to grant that premise - for the sake of the argument - then the next step is from theism to monotheism. Are we there yet?

Are you prepared to concede that (logically) there can only be One maximally great Being? (As opposed to one god creating a universe and another god uncreating it then the first one gets annoyed and recreates it again....)

There's no point attempting an apologetic defense of Christianity specifically if all the objections merely revert back to;
....oh, yeah well there's no evidence for any gods at all so there - take that Christians!

I agree that many philosophically generic arguments for God(s) and purported evidences could equally point to Thor or Odin or Zeus or Osiris. But if you grant the possible existence of divinity, biblical monotheism is much easier to defend than any alternatives. Likewise the evidence, such as we have, is more consistent with a personal loving God in accordance with Judeo-Christian theology than for any competing theology.

I disagree with pretty much everything in this post. "Higher life form" is an illusion based on arbitrary definitions of "higher."

Logically it is not only possible but far more likely that there is no "Maximally greatest being" assuming the term itself can be defined. It is no more likely that there can be only one maximally greatest being than it is that there can be only one maximally greatest sex partner.

Islam is monotheistic. Christianity is not.

The "evidence such as we have" is orders of magnitude more consistent with a universe that doesn't give a rat's ass whether we exist or not than it it is with the concept that there is a magic sky-daddy who cares about homo-sapiens more than, say, mosquitoes. The universe is statistically less than 0.0000001% hospitable to our existence. The idea that some creator-god fabricated this universe with us in mind is simple head-in-the-ass hubris, not the product of evidence. It befitted ancient people who lacked the technology to ascertain the nature of the universe but we've long outgrown the need and justification for such superstitions. This doesn't mean we are "higher" than these ancients; but it does mean that we no longer have an excuse to keep believing the campfire stories they made up about gods and monsters.

 

[Lion IRC]

...I disagree with pretty much everything in this post. "Higher life form" is an illusion based on arbitrary definitions of "higher."

Good, better, best are quite sound ontological categories. (Superlatives)
There's no reason we can't agree on definitions 'higher' notwithstanding the fact that we agree upon the arbitrary nature of assigning definitions. Whoever said taxonomy was anything other than arbitrary? (Bats/Birds)

Animal rights activists are perfectly entitled to argue that there is no such thing as 'higher' beings/animals. But in doing so they are actually undermining the idea that any single species should care about another. An argument for equal worth can
just as easily translate into an argument for equal worthlessness.

...Logically it is not only possible but far more likely that there is no "Maximally greatest being" assuming the term itself can be defined.

If it's logically possible for there NOT to be an MGB then there must also be the opposite possibility. (Viz. That an MGB exists) You surely aren't going to say that there is never a best-in-class ? Chess player rankings. Worlds biggest diamond.
Fastest, highest, strongest...

... It is no more likely that there can be only one maximally greatest being than it is that there can be only one maximally greatest sex partner.

You're making an argument for your own inability to discern difference.
If you can't tell the difference, then you might not think such a being exists but you are hardly in a position to declare such a being improbable.
Can you really not judge any qualitative or quantitative ranking between theoretical (or actual) sex partners?

...Islam is monotheistic. Christianity is not.

Says you.

...The "evidence such as we have" is orders of magnitude more consistent with a universe that doesn't give a rat's ass whether we exist or not than it it is with the concept that there is a magic sky-daddy who cares about homo-sapiens more than, say, mosquitoes. The universe is statistically less than 0.0000001% hospitable to our existence. The idea that some creator-god fabricated this universe with us in mind is simple head-in-the-ass hubris, not the product of evidence. It befitted ancient people who lacked the technology to ascertain the nature of the universe but we've long outgrown the need and justification for such superstitions. This doesn't mean we are "higher" than these ancients; but it does mean that we no longer have an excuse to keep believing the campfire stories they made up about gods and monsters.

That's just a matter of perspective.
Huge universe / scarcity of life - this is a ratio which can equally be postulated as demonstrating the 'specialness' of life or the 'unintentionality' of life.

 

[Atheos]

Good, better, best are quite sound ontological categories. (Superlatives)
There's no reason we can't agree on definitions 'higher' notwithstanding the fact that we agree upon the arbitrary nature of assigning definitions. Whoever said taxonomy was anything other than arbitrary? (Bats/Birds)

This is completely irrelevant. Define what a "higher life form" is and I'll be glad to debate your definition. Until then I argue there is really no such thing. "Different" is not the same as higher or lower.

Animal rights activists are perfectly entitled to argue that there is no such thing as 'higher' beings/animals. But in doing so they are actually undermining the idea that any single species should care about another. An argument for equal worth can just as easily translate into an argument for equal worthlessness.

Again, a completely irrelevant point. It is irrelevant whether or not any species cares about any other, or even if any individual within a species cares about any other. None of this is relevant to whether or not a species is "higher" than another unless that is the criteria you are using as a basis for "higher." In that case you would be well served to avoid using such an ill-defined term and use a term more appropriate for whatever argument you're trying to make, e.g., "more empathetic."

If it's logically possible for there NOT to be an MGB then there must also be the opposite possibility. (Viz. That an MGB exists) You surely aren't going to say that there is never a best-in-class ? Chess player rankings. Worlds biggest diamond.
Fastest, highest, strongest...

And in each of these cases the specimen is the greatest in exactly one level of measurement. The best chess player is not also the biggest diamond, and unlikely to be the fastest runner, the tallest person and the strongest weight-lifter. I am many orders of magnitude more athletic than Stephen Hawking, yet I'm an overweight old man who gets winded climbing a flight of stairs. Does that make me "greater"?

The "evidence we have" (your term, not mine) overwhelmingly favors the proposition there is no MGB. Instead, there are some individuals (and species) which are better at some things but not as adept at others. Find any evidence of a single individual anywhere about whom it can be said that no individual or species on this planet is more adept at anything (even if it is the fly larvae's ability to thrive in a pile of shit) and you've finally got evidence that there might somewhere be such a thing as can be referred to as a maximally greatest being. Until such time as this evidence is produced the sensible working hypothesis from which to operate is that life tends to evolve in ways that enhance its ability to produce viable offspring in the environment in which it exists. The world's fastest human swimmer is no match for a fin-brandishing dolphin. But a dolphin would have great difficulty climbing a tree. The most likely scenario is that throughout the universe, wherever life has found a niche in which to grow, it has produced life that may have advantages unheard of on this planet, but that would be at some disadvantage in other areas to inhabitants of our planet.

Huge universe / scarcity of life - this is a ratio which can equally be postulated as demonstrating the 'specialness' of life or the 'unintentionality' of life.

It was you who argued that the "evidence we have" favors some sort of monotheistic sky-daddy who cares about homo-sapiens. Present this evidence and we've got something to consider. Otherwise the hugeness of the universe and apparent lack of concern over our plight demonstrates that this is an unwarranted conclusion. The universe exhibits no apparent concern over the welfare of our planet or solar system. Our planet doesn't care whether we survive or not, which is evidenced constantly by earthquakes, tsunamis and the proliferation of disease-causing parasites and infectious diseases constantly striving against us in the battle for limited resources on this planet. Our species is only one killer asteroid away from extinction. To think that of all the species of life that have gone extinct on this planet we are somehow immune to this possibility is something borne of either ignorance, hubris or wishful thinking. It is not something that is in evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If it's logically possible for there NOT to be an MGB then there must also be the opposite possibility. (Viz. That an MGB exists) You surely aren't going to say that there is never a best-in-class ? Chess player rankings. Worlds biggest diamond.
Fastest, highest, strongest...

So, what makes a being maximally great?
You've just listed, and implied, a whole slew of varying characteristics by which we can judge individual examples. But do ALL these characteristics have to add up to your MGB? Does the MGB have to be the biggest AND smallest, fastest AND slowest?

The idea of an MGB implies that all beings can be judged and ranked, does it not? So before we get into hypothetical beings, can you show how to rank two beings? Say, a scarab beetle and bombardier beetle. Which one is greater?

 

[atrib]

Agreed.

But AFAICT science is doing a bang-up job of discovering more 'gaps' than it fills with answers.

You say all this with a straight face while using a computer connected to the internet. Do you know of a better way of going about figuring out how the universe works?

Cue God of the Gaps....

Science discovered the Big Bang. Science discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe. Science discovered that we don't - and probably won't EVER - be able to make the technology needed to fill the current known gaps in our knowledge. (We can't build a bigger, better Hadron Colider and the universe will eventually expand to the point that we will no longer be able to obtain observational data ABOUT the universe.)

What is your point? Why can't we build a better particle accelerator? Will we (our descendants) be around when the universe has expanded to the point where our closest galaxies are too far away to be observed? Will this occur after the end of the stelliferous era, when the universe is a cold dark place and energy differentials no longer exist to drive the formation of new structures? Will it even matter, and to whom?

Meanwhile, you are unable to produce your god, or a single scrap of evidence to suggest its existence. That is why you need to argue from a position of ignorance. I, personally, like to argue from a position of knowledge, which is why I rely on the scientific method, instead of an old book of fairy tales.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are no "gaps" in human knowledge. There are merely things we know and things we don't know, and not all that knowledge is the same. One person does not possess the same knowledge as the next person, no two people are identical on the subject of knowledge.

Discussion about gods and gaps is another example of convenient, conditioned, religious non-thought. It leads to the conclusion that every person's god by definition must be different based on any god-of-the-gaps.

Religion is weird. God must be ignorance.

 

[Atheos]

If it's logically possible for there NOT to be an MGB then there must also be the opposite possibility. (Viz. That an MGB exists)

I knew there was something wrong with this, just couldn't put my finger on it.

If it's logically possible for there not to be a square circle then there must also be the opposite possibility. This is why this syllogism doesn't work.

 

[Lion IRC]

If it is logically possible for a thing to exist - as opposed to NOT existing - then it holds that there is also a possibility of its non-existence. And vice versa.

It's not a sylogism by the way.

You said IF it's possible for a square circle not to exist...the opposite of that possibility is that it MIGHT exist.

But if you think it's impossible for a square circle to exist then you don't have the option to speculate about its NON existence. (Much like the person who holds that God is a necessary beng.)

If there is a 10% possibility that a thing exists, there must be a 90% possibility that it doesn't. And vice versa.
No?

 

[Lion IRC]

In the case of a best-in-class, maximally great thing, the ontological argument holds that such a thing NECESSARILY exists.
That it cannot NOT exist. (Unless no things exist at all and then there is no heirarchy of things. No good, better, best.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the case of a best-in-class, maximally great thing, the ontological argument holds that such a thing NECESSARILY exists.
That it cannot NOT exist. (Unless no things exist at all and then there is no heirarchy of things. No good, better, best.)

Yes, that's what the argument says.
Can you actually make the ontological argument work, though?
If it's a valid argument, one should be able to pick any two beings and establish their relative positions in the hierarchy of things.
If there's no hierarchy, then it's not a good argument.

It seems to me that it's only a prop, an excuse to pretend that God must exist. That it only works backwards from that conclusion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, I suppose theoretically it is open to the argument that no maximally great being or chess player or chocolate cake exists if, for example, you were to claim that all beings are indistinguishable and all chess games end in a draw and no single chocolate cake looks or tastes 'better' than another.

But is that really more parsimonious or philosophically helpful?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is open to the argument that no maximally great being or chess player or chocolate cake exists IF you were to claim that all beings are indistinguishable and all chess games end in a draw and no single chocolate cake looks or tastes 'better' than another.

No, i do not need to claim that no two things are distinguishable in order to say that your argument is untenable to establish ALL things in a hierarchy. I merely have to wait for you to demonstrate the validity of the concept

If this hierarchy reaching up to a maximally great being is a valid concept, it should be possible to actually demonstrate it with beings we already know to exist.
If you cannot establish where two beetles fall in this hierarchy, why would anyone accept the hierarchy as a valid concept? Much less extend it beyond beings we know to exist in order to prop up one that's still being debated?