120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Atheos]

Seriously, the reality we observe does not lend itself to supporting the ontological argument, not really.

I'll go so far as to say that the reality we observe does not support the ontological argument in any way at all. The ontological argument is a Jedi Mind Trick, nothing more. It's like arguing that it is impossible to traverse one inch because there are an infinite number of points between the beginning of the inch and the end of the inch and it is impossible to complete an infinity.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is the Jesus miracle legend the only one which cannot be explained as a result of normal mythologizing?

What matters is that the Jesus miracle accounts cannot be explained if they are fictional, whereas most miracle stories can be explained as a product of mythologizing. The pagan miracle stories, e.g., evolved over many centuries, and this explains how the stories came about even though the alleged events are fictional. But this cannot explain the Jesus miracle stories, because they emerged too abruptly, within decades of the alleged events.

It's just freaking hilarious. People can't make up stories in "only" 30 years.

Can't you get it straight? What they couldn't do was make up stories and get those stories widely circulated, believed, taken seriously, such that in only 30 or 40 years they were being written, copied, published -- and even in multiple documents in less than 100 years.

There were no other examples of miracle stories which achieved this broad extent of circulation and acceptance. None that even come close.

Of course there were other miracle stories made up, probably thousands of them. But why is there no published/written record of them dated from only 50 or 100 years after the alleged event happened? This is what "people can't" do -- they can't get their made-up stories circulated, copied, published, believed by thousands in a short time.

Since you don't want to do any homework on this, I'll help you out: Your guru Richard Carrier has pretended to offer a few examples of alleged miracle stories which meet this requirement of having been recorded early after the alleged miracle happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q43HzpzY04o

His best examples are 2 miracle stories from Herodotus: A horse gave birth to a rabbit, and there were some miraculous signs from the gods at a battle where the Greeks defeated the Persians. The horse story is just a case of a deformed horse, which is not a miracle. And the portents/signs at a sensational battle scene are easily explained as fiction-illusion-fantasy, but even if this is taken as a miracle-type event, there is ONLY ONE source, Herodotus, for this miracle story, and he of course had patriotic motives for promoting this story.

Carrier's only other plausible example is the case of St. Genevieve, for whom there's a written account possibly only a few years after her death. Here again there is ONLY ONE source. Plus, it's very easy to explain how St. Genevieve could have become mythologized sooner than normal, after her long career as a widely-celebrated guru figure.

That this is the best Carrier can come up with really demonstrates the point that the Jesus miracle legend is really the ONLY one which cannot be explained as a result of normal mythologizing. ALL the other examples that anyone can produce are easily explained this way. A long time period of myth-making always was necessary, and the 1 or 2 or 3 possible exceptions are cases where there is ONE SOURCE ONLY, and it's not even clear that these cases really are exceptions.

So do you think it's "hilarious" that your #1 guru-Teacher pundit cannot come up with one other case of an ancient miracle legend which got made up and published in less than 100 years? and thus cannot explain the existence of this one miracle legend only, how it came about, published in multiple documents in such a short time, as all the other cases of miracle legends can be explained?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's a lie that early Christians destroyed books, burned the Library at Alexandria, the Gnostic Gospels, etc.

99% of all written documents perished. But why did only the Jesus miracle events get copied and copied and preserved?

The return of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

OK, you've proved you memorized some fancy labels and logical fallacy terminology. Is that it? Just another return of the "fancy terminology and labels" fallacy?

Are you really surprised Christians preferentially copied Christian material?

Yes, it's surprising that ONLY ONE cult group got their miracle legend recorded and copied and copied and finally published in permanent form to be passed on to future generations.

yes, it's surprising that ONLY ONE cult group got their miracle legend recorded and copied and copied and finally published in permanent form to be passed on to future generations.

So, for someone pretending to speak for historians, you're kinda clueless about history, aren't you?

It's not that the Christain story is the only one people wrote down, it's that it's the only story Christains allowed to be preserved.

I've asked you before to provide any source for this paranoia, other than some modern 20th-century Jesus-debunker pundits. And you have provided no source.

There is no written account of the early Christians destroying ANY literature (except Acts 19:19, where some burned their own books on divination). The Council of Nicea condemned Arianism, and Constantine persecuted those "heretics," but there is no record from any ancient source saying that he destroyed their literature, or that anyone ordered their literature to be destroyed.

Some other "heresies" also were later condemned, virtually all of them Christian, all believing the same "Christian story" containing the Jesus miracles.

It is not true that the published list of canonical books contained any order to destroy books. A list of books was published by Athanasius, containing all the canonical books, but this published list said nothing about destroying any books not approved. All claims that Athanasius ordered the destruction of books are lies. You cannot find any ancient source for this falsehood.

It's also a lie that Christians "burned the Library at Alexandria." All these claims are lies. You need to find something other than these lies upon which to base your theory to explain why the Jesus miracle legend is the only one that was seriously believed and recorded and copied and preserved and published.

That all you have for an explanation is this paranoia based on lies is further corroboration that this was the only miracle legend seriously believed and recorded early and thus preserved for future generations.

What, you haven't seen or heard anyone bemoaning how their cultural history was destroyed by the jealous invaders who wouldn't share?

You're hallucinating.

Many lies have circulated about the alleged destruction of books and libraries by the early Christians. That many like yourself have been deluded and believe these lies and bemoan something that never happened is still further corroboration that there must have been something special and important about the Jesus character of 30 AD that so many fanatics are so desperate to distort and wipe clean the historical record attesting to his acts.

If they had a legitimate cause, they would not need to resort to all these lies.

 

[Atheos]

Can't you get it straight? What they couldn't do was make up stories and get those stories widely circulated, believed, taken seriously, such that in only 30 or 40 years they were being written, copied, published -- and even in multiple documents in less than 100 years.

There were no other examples of miracle stories which achieved this broad extent of circulation and acceptance. None that even come close.

We have the one example and that's enough to show it can be done. You've yet to demonstrate anything impossible about people accomplishing this. This entire argument rests on an appeal to popularity until you get your hands on the solid evidence that convinced these people of the truth of these tales. Until then this argument is just as effective as "There are no other examples of Civil War Historical Fiction that achieved the broad extent of circulation and acceptance as Gone With The Wind. None that even come close." Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara didn't have to be real for this to happen.

To argue that people believed it is silly. People believe lots of things you know to be false. Mormons, Hindus, Scientologists, Ramtha fans. All it takes to get people to believe stuff is a convincing person.

One Joseph Smith or David Koresh explains the believers. A nicely fabricated story line explains the popularity. A good supply of trained scribes explains the copying and publishing. It really is that simple. Your favorite fairy tale is still just a fairy tale no matter how difficult it is for you to accept this simple fact.

Once more, by the numbers:

• Nobody was talking about this great miracle worker when he was supposedly around
• Nobody was talking about this great miracle ministry for at least 30-40 years after he was supposedly around
• GMark appears with a biography for this hero of the christian faith roughly 40 years after he was supposedly around
• Copycat gospels proliferate wildly over the next several decades

Popular? Yes. Real? Hardly. Evidence? None.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Popular? Yes. Real? Hardly. Evidence? None.

Lets not forget about barnacle geese. A good example of religious people believing and practicing stupid, impossible things for centuries.

Barnacle goose

The barnacle myth can can be dated back to at least the 12th century. Gerald of Wales claimed to have seen these birds hanging down from pieces of timber, William Turner accepted the theory, and John Gerard claimed to have seen the birds emerging from their shells. The legend persisted until the end of the 18th century. In County Kerry, until relatively recently, Catholics could eat this bird on a Friday because it counted as fish.

People are credulous, ignorant and superstitious. Therefore impossible things are real. That pretty much sums up the miracle tales of Jesus the great.

 

[Barbarian]

OK, you've proved you memorized some fancy labels and logical fallacy terminology. Is that it? Just another return of the "fancy terminology and labels" fallacy?

You'd do well to learn them yourself. This is a pretty weak defense when I point out you are committing logical fallacies. How about explaining to me how you know you aren't picking aspects of the Jesus myth and promoting them to the rank of proof of veracity, when pretty much everybody here sees that that's what you are doing (and FYI that's what the sharpshooter fallacy refers to). If you were born in Saudi Arabia, it would be obvious to you that the Gospels were corrupted with all these miracle claims and that the true sign of prophethood are a mole on one's back, a white thigh and an ability to split the Moon; there could not be any other explanation.

 

[Atheos]

Appeal to popularity

Lumpenproletariat keeps denying that he is appealing to popularity.

Here is a simple test:

Try formulating your argument without appealing to popularity and see how it flies. Take out the "lots of people believed it and took it seriously" stuff. Take out anything that positions this story as a #1 best seller. Leave out the bits about how widely circulated it was.

You don't even have to present this in thread. Just let it be a thought experiment. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for you to take an honest and objective look at what we skeptics see when we bother to read these walls of text that are little more than appeals to popularity garnished with sprinkles of Texas Sharpshooter.

It is my impression based on these arguments that the very foundation of everything you argue is based on an appeal to popularity. Without popularity you've got nothing.

So take a deep breath, go back and get the evidence that convinced objective people that these tales were true. Present that.

Or just keep appealing to popularity and denying that's what you're doing. Whatever makes you happy. We can sit here and knock these hanging sliders over the fence all day.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Try formulating your argument without appealing to popularity and see how it flies.

But Lumpy insists that his argument is NOT an argument from popularity. In his view, he's already done that.
Maybe it'd be more useful if Lumpy were to try to change his argument TO an appeal to popularity.
Just to see what it would look like. What would he have to add to or change in the argument in order to make it an appeal from popularity argument?
I think that would be instructive. For one, he could demonstrate that he knows what a popularity argument entails, and he could show the differences between a popularity argument AND his argument.

So, Lumpy, try that? Something like "In order for my argument to be an argument from popularity, i'd have to: "

 

[Lion IRC]

OK, you've proved you memorized some fancy labels and logical fallacy terminology. Is that it? Just another return of the "fancy terminology and labels" fallacy?

You'd do well to learn them yourself. This is a pretty weak defense when I point out you are committing logical fallacies. How about explaining to me how you know you aren't picking aspects of the Jesus myth and promoting them to the rank of proof of veracity, when pretty much everybody here sees that that's what you are doing (and FYI that's what the sharpshooter fallacy refers to).

In a thread where we are focussing on historical documents about Jesus you are accusing someone of selectively focussing on Jesus documents???

I think you need to learn what the Texas Shartshooter fallacy entails. See also the Taxicab fallacy. There's nothing random about the rise of Christianity. Neither is there an abundance of competing historical data about alternative contenders for anything equivalent to the events that gave rise to Christianity. So it's hardly a case of being selective with the historical data because there isn't much data to begin with.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here is a simple test:

Try formulating your argument without appealing to popularity and see how it flies. Take out the "lots of people believed it and took it seriously" stuff. Take out anything that positions this story as a #1 best seller. Leave out the bits about how widely circulated it was.

Yeah Lumpy!
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how many people think something is correct.

Checkmate global warming believers!

Checkmate same-sex marriage advocates!

 

[Lion IRC]

If you want to be taken seriously around here, you have to find a real actual historical person whom NOBODY thinks ever existed and then you can present your case.

 

[Lion IRC]

Meanwhile, if you really want to see the argumentum ad populam in full-flight, just see how often Christian apologists get scolded and reprimanded by condescending atheists about how;

...nobody here believes that
...everybody here knows you're making that up
...we all see what you're trying to do

 

[Keith&Co.]

Here is a simple test:

Try formulating your argument without appealing to popularity and see how it flies. Take out the "lots of people believed it and took it seriously" stuff. Take out anything that positions this story as a #1 best seller. Leave out the bits about how widely circulated it was.

Yeah Lumpy!
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how many people think something is correct.

Slight mistake there, Lion.
It's not that Lumpy is trying to say Christainity is correct based on the number of people who support it.
He's claiming that the events are historically accurate based on the number of people who accept it as true.

Doesn't really have much in common with climate change or same sex marriages.

 

[Atheos]

Here is a simple test:

Try formulating your argument without appealing to popularity and see how it flies. Take out the "lots of people believed it and took it seriously" stuff. Take out anything that positions this story as a #1 best seller. Leave out the bits about how widely circulated it was.

Yeah Lumpy!
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how many people think something is correct.

Checkmate global warming believers!

Checkmate same-sex marriage advocates!

Look, Lion IRC, if you honestly believe that appeal to popularity is a valid method of determining truth, then so be it. I truly wish you happiness with that belief and whatever you get from it. Lumpenproletariat, however, has protested that we are unfairly accusing him of appealing to popularity in his efforts to substantiate the Jesus stories. I think I've demonstrated why I believe he is appealing to popularity. He is certainly welcome to challenge that if he sees fit.

If he decides that he shares this particular inclination with you that the number of people who think something is true has some bearing on whether or not it is true then fine. Admit that he is, indeed, appealing to popularity and accept that some of us don't find such appeals to be very compelling in terms of justification for believing a story.

But just for grins, do you believe that global warming is a hoax? This is honestly not an attempt to derail the conversation, it's an opportunity to explore the question of why people believe what they believe. I was once very skeptical about global warming, but I am no longer that way. Evidence convinced me I was wrong in spite of the fact that I didn't want to accept it. I still don't want to believe it even now.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Meanwhile, if you really want to see the argumentum ad populam in full-flight, just see how often Christian apologists get scolded and reprimanded by condescending atheists about how;

...nobody here believes that

Um... to be an argument from popularity, wouldn't that have to have said, 'you're wrong BECAUSE no one here believes that'? As you have it posted, it's just an observation, not Argument from Popularity.

...everybody here knows you're making that up

As above. That could just be a summary, if every other person in the thread has expressed their opinion that the poster is just making shit up. To be an AfP, they'd have to be wrong BECAUSE everyone feels they're making shit up.

...we all see what you're trying to do

I can't see how that's even supposedly an AfP. Could you demonstrate your logic in including that in the list?

 

[Atheos]

Meanwhile, if you really want to see the argumentum ad populam in full-flight, just see how often Christian apologists get scolded and reprimanded by condescending atheists about how;

...nobody here believes that
...everybody here knows you're making that up
...we all see what you're trying to do

And those of us who use such arguments are also appealing to popularity. You, on the other hand have just appealed to another fallacy, the  Tu Quoque. It isn't a good way to find truth either.

 

[Jarhyn]

Meanwhile, if you really want to see the argumentum ad populam in full-flight, just see how often Christian apologists get scolded and reprimanded by condescending atheists about how;

...nobody here believes that
...everybody here knows you're making that up
...we all see what you're trying to do

Generally, the form used here is "nobody here believes that because (and then here they give a reason)." An example is "nobody here believes that there is anything like the Christian god, because if such an entity existed, then the most intelligent being in the universe would be no more mature or developed than a five year old throwing tantrums" or "everyone here knows you are making that up because you provided no source" or "we all see what you are trying to do because we have seen it a million times before with a constant revolving door series of apologists, see all these times we reference"

I will readily admit that there is some appeal to popularity to drive home these facts (largely because for better or worse it is a tactic that apologists respect more than real rational discussion) but they are purely secondary to actual reasons, and attacking the appeal to popularity doesn't address the actual points.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

OK, you've proved you memorized some fancy labels and logical fallacy terminology. Is that it? Just another return of the "fancy terminology and labels" fallacy?

You'd do well to learn them yourself. This is a pretty weak defense when I point out you are committing logical fallacies. How about explaining to me how you know you aren't picking aspects of the Jesus myth and promoting them to the rank of proof of veracity, when pretty much everybody here sees that that's what you are doing (and FYI that's what the sharpshooter fallacy refers to). If you were born in Saudi Arabia, it would be obvious to you that the Gospels were corrupted with all these miracle claims and that the true sign of prophethood are a mole on one's back, a white thigh and an ability to split the Moon; there could not be any other explanation.

Also, I don't think Lump is aware of his committing an anachronism.

 

[funinspace]

You'd do well to learn them yourself. This is a pretty weak defense when I point out you are committing logical fallacies. How about explaining to me how you know you aren't picking aspects of the Jesus myth and promoting them to the rank of proof of veracity, when pretty much everybody here sees that that's what you are doing (and FYI that's what the sharpshooter fallacy refers to).

In a thread where we are focussing on historical documents about Jesus you are accusing someone of selectively focussing on Jesus documents???

I think you need to learn what the Texas Shartshooter fallacy entails. See also the Taxicab fallacy. There's nothing random about the rise of Christianity. Neither is there an abundance of competing historical data about alternative contenders for anything equivalent to the events that gave rise to Christianity. So it's hardly a case of being selective with the historical data because there isn't much data to begin with.

I guess there isn’t anything random about the rise of the LDS and Islam either…. I’m not sure if you really want to hitch your horse to Lumpy’s rather eccentric ‘theological’ post. Though Lumpy does find the Jesus miracles very very important, IRT avoiding the sweeping arc of the eternal Auschwitz net, he throws out many Christological babies with the bath water while doing so. He also never quite gets to figuring out just how big and bad that eternal Auchwitz net is. He also doesn’t seem to think much of Yahweh, as he dismisses pretty much all the Tanakh’s major grand miracles as fairy tales. You know, like that make believe Deluge. He tosses out the whole Jesus birthing narratives among a host of other items anytime they get in his way of what he thinks is historical.

Here is a simple test:

Try formulating your argument without appealing to popularity and see how it flies. Take out the "lots of people believed it and took it seriously" stuff. Take out anything that positions this story as a #1 best seller. Leave out the bits about how widely circulated it was.

Yeah Lumpy!
Don't you know that it doesn't matter how many people think something is correct.

Hopefully, you aren’t a young person, otherwise you will most probably need to convert to the latest most popular faith system in your old age, called Islam. For most of history, Christianity never was the most popular faith system. By the 15th century it is estimated that it finally became the 4th most popular faith system. It was probably only sometime in the 19th century when it finally got to be #1. So after having the #1 spot for less than 3 hundred years, your faith system will most probably drop to #2 around 2070.

Or putting it another way, why is it more important that 2.2 (this includes the 15 million Mormons and the uber liberal Shelby Sponge types) billion people believe in several major versions of Christianity, verses the 1.6 billion that believe in several versions of Islam?

Checkmate global warming believers!

Are you referring to expert consensus of climate scientists, in which 90-97% have opined regarding human-caused global warming?

Checkmate same-sex marriage advocates!

WWOD???

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Meanwhile, if you really want to see the argumentum ad populam in full-flight, just see how often Christian apologists get scolded and reprimanded by condescending atheists about how;

...nobody here believes that
...everybody here knows you're making that up
...we all see what you're trying to do

The argument is still invalid.