120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Jolly_Penguin]

The point is that virtually all the events which happened, and all persons who existed, were never mentioned in the historical record, and when someone did get into the record, there had to be a reason why, or something important or special about him to make him worthy of such mention.

Presuming that he existed in the first place and isn't just a made up legend. And presuming that whatever made him worthy of being remembered for history is included in what we know of him today instead of just the fanciful legends that were added to it. And presuming he isn't a composite character, as a lot of people believe King Arthur may be. That is lot of presumption.

We can explain why most historical characters got mentioned, including those who became mythologized into legends. There was always something special or noteworthy about them: King Arthur, Hercules, Robin Hood, and others who probably did exist and were remembered because of great deeds they performed ("great" but not supernatural). They did heroic acts or something noteworthy over a long colorful career.

But why did Jesus Christ become mythologized into a legend?

Is there any other character who became a legend and about whom we cannot identify anything noteworthy that he performed which caused him to become recognized in the written record and made into a legend?

Maybe there really was a Jesus street preacher who claimed to be t he son of God. Maybe he even gave the sermon on the mount and maybe some people became his cult followers. We see that in modern times. I don't see why that would make any of the legends attributed to him any more believable than the claims people make about modern day cult leaders that claim to have special powers, or the leader of North Korea making fanciful claims about himself, etc. I doubt that much of what is claimed of Jesus is even original. It is probably stuff that was claimed of others before he came along, that his followers just decided to attribute to him to make him seem more special and worthy of their worship etc. i don't know for sure, but I see no reason to presume otherwise.

Another premise everyone must accept: there is no reason to think this was different back then. If you think differently, tell us why do you think this to be the case, considering that your alleged god stopped causing miracles without any good explanation (except for the skepticism permeating society).

This is a great point. I would love to see a Christian try to answer it. Where did God go? Why is he hiding from us today? Is it just coincidence that miracles got less dramatic as our ability to record history got better?

 

[bigfield]

Also relevant from XKCD:

 

[Lion IRC]

I would say it's possible to disbelieve ANY reported miracle if you try hard enough.
There's an alternative explanation for just about everything - not just miracle claims
Go on...try me.
Name a scientific 'fact' you believe is irrefutable and I'll play the role of uber-skeptical conspiracy theorist.

#brain_in_a_vat

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I would say it's possible to disbelieve ANY reported miracle if you try hard enough.
There's an alternative explanation for just about everything - not just miracle claims
Go on...try me.
Name a scientific 'fact' you believe is irrefutable and I'll play the role of uber-skeptical conspiracy theorist.

#brain_in_a_vat

Who needs to try "hard enough"? It's easy to be sceptical about miracle claims. What's difficult - if not impossible - is demonstrating that there's any substance to them.

 

[Lion IRC]

They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But the most extraordinary claim I ever heard was the claim that every single reported instance of a miracle throughout the entire course of human history are ALL false and they should all be disbelieved.

...oh Lion IRC, there you go again with that fallacy. Just because eight hundred and sixty three billion nine thousand four hundred and thirty seven humans all claim they experienced a miracle doesn't necessarily mean there is such a thing as supernatural events.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would say it's possible to disbelieve ANY reported miracle if you try hard enough.

Yeah. Go the extreme distance of asking for corroborating evidence...

Then wait.



























Wait a long time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the most extraordinary claim I ever heard was the claim that every single reported instance of a miracle throughout the entire course of human history are ALL false and they should all be disbelieved.

Exactly what makes that an extraordinary claim?
If there's no extraordinary evidence of 'the supernatural' then it would be an ordinary claim that the supernatural had never been demonstrated, so claims of supernatural events can be discounted until extraordinary evidence for them can be provided. It's more like the default position than an extraordinary one.

 

[Lion IRC]

I would say it's possible to disbelieve ANY reported miracle if you try hard enough.
There's an alternative explanation for just about everything - not just miracle claims
Go on...try me.
Name a scientific 'fact' you believe is irrefutable and I'll play the role of uber-skeptical conspiracy theorist.

#brain_in_a_vat

Who needs to try "hard enough"? It's easy to be sceptical about miracle claims...

LOL. You just made my point for me.

People - lazy people - can easily dismiss miracle clams without making any effort.
But I would have thought that an enquiring mind WOULD try hard to investigate the possibility that some miracle claims might actually be true. Instead you're bragging how easy you think it is to dismiss them.

I'd love to hear what you would say to the person who believes miracle claims without making the effort to investigate their plausibility.

Its easy to take something purely on faith - no effort needed at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Its easy to take something purely on faith - no effort needed at all.

Exactly how does 'being skeptical' = 'taking something purely on faith?'

Faith is a firm belief.
Skepticism is a doubt.
How do you manage to conflate the two?

 

[Sarpedon]

Lion, do you believe everything people tell you they believe?

 

[Lion IRC]

I would say it's possible to disbelieve ANY reported miracle if you try hard enough.

Yeah. Go the extreme distance of asking for corroborating evidence...

Hang on, you dismiss both the person who makes the original claim AND the person who corroborates the claim using the exact same methodological skepticism.

You say they are BOTH hallucinating.

And why would we dismiss someone's claim in the first place just because they were the only witness?
Do we believe the rape victim when it's just their word versus that of their attacker - no other witnesses?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Who needs to try "hard enough"? It's easy to be sceptical about miracle claims...

LOL. You just made my point for me.

People - lazy people - can easily dismiss miracle clams without making any effort.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's not lazy; that's just sensible.

But I would have thought that an enquiring mind WOULD try hard to investigate the possibility that some miracle claims might actually be true. Instead you're bragging how easy you think it is to dismiss them.

To dismiss them without evidence? Yup, that's really easy.

I'd love to hear what you would say to the person who believes miracle claims without making the effort to investigate their plausibility.

I would say, "believe whatever you want. But if you want me to believe it, too, you'll have to give me more than just an unsupported claim". That's what I'd say.

Its easy to take something purely on faith - no effort needed at all.

I'm sure it is; I wouldn't know. I do know that it's easy not to accept something purely on faith. Faith is probably the worst possible way of determining the truth or otherwise of a claim. Dismissing a claim of the "supernatural" takes no faith at all - quite the opposite.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah. Go the extreme distance of asking for corroborating evidence...

Hang on, you dismiss both the person who makes the original claim AND the person who corroborates the claim using the exact same methodological skepticism.

You say they are BOTH hallucinating.

I like how you're dismissing my reaction to evidence that hasn't been presented yet...
But are you saying that the only corroboration is someone SAYING they saw the miracle?

I asked for corroborating evidence of the miracle, not testimony.

And why would we dismiss someone's claim in the first place just because they were the only witness?

You keep putting words in my mouth. I asked for evidence. That's not a dismissal. Unless you're admitting that the only evidence is their testimony?
That can be explained without having to add supernatural elements.

Do we believe the rape victim when it's just their word versus that of their attacker - no other witnesses?

Do you place 'rape' as a supernatural event? Do you believe that rape does not leave any evidence except verbal testimony?

What a strange, strange direction you went on this...

How about this:

"Hang on. Why don't you offer up some ACTUAL evidence of an ACTUAL miracle, and see what happens, rather than tell me my side of a hypothetical argument over a hypothetical miracle?"

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Yeah. Go the extreme distance of asking for corroborating evidence...

Hang on, you dismiss both the person who makes the original claim AND the person who corroborates the claim using the exact same methodological skepticism.

You say they are BOTH hallucinating.

And why would we dismiss someone's claim in the first place just because they were the only witness?
Do we believe the rape victim when it's just their word versus that of their attacker - no other witnesses?

We look at the evidence. Rape leaves physical traces which can be identified and pursued as lines of inquiry.

What physical traces do miracles leave?

 

[Learner]

I think he is refering to atheism using the 'onus is on you' thing and just leaving it there, whereas agnostics are more inclined to investigate. I used to say that as an agnostic myself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think he is refering to atheism using the 'onus is on you' thing and just leaving it there,

Someone is claiming the supernatural exists AND that it accomplished X event. Why would the burden then be on us to do their homework?

There's OODLES of supernatural claims out there. Why aren't you down at the foot of the garden looking for fairies, or out in the woods looking for wendigo, or in the open sea calling for mermaids?

 

[Learner]

Someone is claiming the supernatural exists AND that it accomplished X event. Why would the burden then be on us to do their homework?

There shouldn't be a burden imo, if one wants to know or disprove it and finally put to rest the claim.

There's OODLES of supernatural claims out there. Why aren't you down at the foot of the garden looking for fairies, or out in the woods looking for wendigo, or in the open sea calling for mermaids?

Sceptics have important value and I agree here.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion, do you believe everything people tell you they believe?

Yep - even contradictory stuff.
But not all at the same time. If someone tells me to believe the Earth is flat I'll only believe it until a different person tells me the opposite.

Petruchio. Good Lord, how bright and goodly shines the moon!
Katherina. The moon? The sun! It is not moonlight now.
Petruchio. I say it is the moon that shines so bright.
Katherina. I know it is the sun that shines so bright.
Petruchio. It shall be moon, or star, or what I list,
Katherina. Forward, I pray, since we have come so far,
And be it moon, or sun, or what you please;
Petruchio. I say it is the moon.
Katherina. I know it is the moon.
Petruchio. Nay, then you lie; it is the blessed sun.
Katherina. Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun;
But sun it is not, when you say it is not;
And the moon changes even as your mind.
What you will have it nam'd, even that it is

 

[Lion IRC]

...Do you believe that rape does not leave any evidence except verbal testimony?

Do you think all rape vicrims should be disbelieved until they produce physical evidence?
No bruises? Never happened.
No semen? Never happened.
No CCTV footage? Never happened.
You didn't resist your attacker? Must have been consensual.

Paging Rebecca Watson.

Hang on, you dismiss both the person who makes the original claim AND the person who corroborates the claim using the exact same methodological skepticism.

You say they are BOTH hallucinating.

And why would we dismiss someone's claim in the first place just because they were the only witness?
Do we believe the rape victim when it's just their word versus that of their attacker - no other witnesses?

...Rape leaves physical traces which can be identified and pursued as lines of inquiry.

Really? Oh well in that case Bill Cosby has nothing to worry about.

 

[none]

is the rape information from an anonymous source with supernatural elements?