120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[GenesisNemesis]

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

 

[Atheos]

This is a silly argument. Lion IRC, Lumpenproletariat, Learner, anyone else who wants to take this, have at it:

I got in my car and drove from Birmingham Alabama to Montgomery Alabama yesterday.

Do you believe it? I actually drove a car from Brimingham to Montgomery! Most of the trip was conducted via US Interstate 65. Hard to believe, isn't it?

When I got ready to drive back to Birmingham though my car was way too low on gas to make the trip back. I couldn't find a place to fill up because of the gas shortage caused by the recent pipeline incident.

So I ran on foot without assistance back from Montgomery Alabama to Birmingham Alabama that afternoon. Took me 4 hours and 15 minutes to run the distance. Just a bit over 92 miles. By my calculations I ran at an average speed of less than 22 miles per hour. To put that into perspective Usain Bolt can run 28 miles per hour, so that speed is certainly well within the range of human capacity.

Is there anything in this story that you find difficult to believe? Why? If someone you didn't know corroborated the whole story through nothing but testimony would you drop all skepticism and believe it? If 10 people you'd never met said they believed it would you drop all skepticism and believe it?

How about this: If one person 40 years from now writes a story that includes me doing this would you believe it? How about if 10 years pass and someone else rewrites that story and publishes a different version. Would you believe it then? But wait, there's more! Someone else comes along another 10 years after that and rewrites that same story, publishing it a 3rd time. Surely you'd believe it then. Okay, I can see you're a die-hard skeptic. What you really need is for one more person to come along full 90 years removed from the day I accomplished this wonderful feat and re-write the story a 4th time. Surely that will be enough to dispel all doubt.

Okay, I have one more trump card up my sleeve: Before the first guy ever reported this afternoon jog of mine, another person who actually has a name and was a well known reporter reported about me being a great guitar player and being able to hold my breath for 3 minutes. Surely the combination of this guy's testimony about my amazing talents in those two areas is enough to convince you that I was far and away the worlds fastest long distance runner.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

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.

The accusations against Cosby do not originate with a single anonymous source 40 years after the event, then copied and embellished by other anonymous sources, all in documents containing known falsehoods. Also, rape is a common occurence, not a breach of the laws of physics. It's a poor analogy, and I might add, a distasteful one.

 

[Atheos]

I'm going to double-dip in the conversation and explain a bit more about my stance on this whole thing. If you've ever been present at a Pentecostial prayer meeting you have seen first hand how quickly a bunch of ordinarily rational people can get whipped into a frenzy of mutually-supported delusion that something miraculous is happening. It starts with the tongue-speaking and quickly erupts into a full-blown orgy of confirmation bias, looking for any sign that the holy spirit is in action right there in the room. People get healed of headaches. Someone nearly always gets "slain in the spirit."

But never, ever does anyone restore a missing limb or walk on water. You know ... something that really would show evidence that something real is happening.

And as has been pointed out, even if it did how would we know that it was real? I enjoy watching Penn & Teller's Fool Us on television. These people materialize impressive objects seemingly out of thin air. In a recent episode a magician levitated into the air while looping a jump rope all around his body to show there could be no wires. Penn & Teller usually know how the tricks are done but every once in awhile they either guess wrong or haven't a clue. But one thing is for certain. No actual miracles are ever performed. There is always a completely rational explanation for how the illusion was performed.

If there was an omnipotent god who wanted to leave behind evidence of its existence in the form of miracles, and who wanted this evidence to be compelling enough that even those who might ordinarily be inclined towards skepticism (such as me) would have to believe they actually happened, such a god could come up with something better than parlor tricks or great signs supported by nothing else besides the anonymous testimony of people decades and hundreds of miles removed from the time and place in which the alleged incidents occurred.

It is entirely reasonable to be skeptical that these miracles ever occurred. We have thousands of miracles being reported every year that have perfectly logical explanations. A cluster of miracle reports instantiated by anonymous people in a pre-technology society with an obvious agenda to promote a religious belief just doesn't even rise to the level of a blip on the radar when it comes to credibility.

The god described in these stories could have turned the fig tree into an indestructible magically levitating shrine for all to see forever. Those of us who doubted could simply journey to the place where this miracle happened and see for our self that the physical evidence of the miracle still exists. To kill off the fig tree so that it would wither away and remove all the evidence is just ... dumb. Sorry. Tellingly, not a single miracle Jesus "performed" left any physical evidence that it happened. Every one is completely unfalsifiable. Has to be taken on faith.

And if that's enough for you, so be it. It's not enough for me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you think all rape vicrims should be disbelieved until they produce physical evidence?

Again, you conflate skepticism with predetermined disbelief.
When you wanna have an actual discussion, let someone know.

 

[Learner]

This is a silly argument. Lion IRC, Lumpenproletariat, Learner, anyone else who wants to take this, have at it:I got in my car and drove from Birmingham Alabama to Montgomery Alabama yesterday. Do you believe it? I actually drove a car from Brimingham to Montgomery! Most of the trip was conducted via US Interstate 65. Hard to believe, isn't it?

If comparing by your other posts, you would seem to be a decent fellow. So If you said this was really true, I would believe you. If this was actually an impossible task in reality I would assume there was a mistake or misinterpretation judging by your character previously seen in other posts.

When I got ready to drive back to Birmingham though my car was way too low on gas to make the trip back. I couldn't find a place to fill up because of the gas shortage caused by the recent pipeline incident.

So I ran on foot without assistance back from Montgomery Alabama to Birmingham Alabama that afternoon. Took me 4 hours and 15 minutes to run the distance. Just a bit over 92 miles. By my calculations I ran at an average speed of less than 22 miles per hour. To put that into perspective Usain Bolt can run 28 miles per hour, so that speed is certainly well within the range of human capacity.

Is there anything in this story that you find difficult to believe? Why? If someone you didn't know corroborated the whole story through nothing but testimony would you drop all skepticism and believe it? If 10 people you'd never met said they believed it would you drop all skepticism and believe it?

I guess, if this was quite difficult or an impossible task, (assuming that it was accepted common knowledge). I wouldn't believe you if you did this without some aided assistance at least (or Divine asst). By yourself NO. This could be a 'different' character to the decent character above but is rather someone who is either not being truthful or is delusional. Those 10 people are then being mislead or following the wrong faith, so to speak.

How about this: If one person 40 years from now writes a story that includes me doing this would you believe it? How about if 10 years pass and someone else rewrites that story and publishes a different version. Would you believe it then? But wait, there's more! Someone else comes along another 10 years after that and rewrites that same story, publishing it a 3rd time. Surely you'd believe it then. Okay, I can see you're a die-hard skeptic. What you really need is for one more person to come along full 90 years removed from the day I accomplished this wonderful feat and re-write the story a 4th time. Surely that will be enough to dispel all doubt.

If several other people wrote more or less around the same time in relation to your story then it would give a lot more weight.

Okay, I have one more trump card up my sleeve: Before the first guy ever reported this afternoon jog of mine, another person who actually has a name and was a well known reporter reported about me being a great guitar player and being able to hold my breath for 3 minutes. Surely the combination of this guy's testimony about my amazing talents in those two areas is enough to convince you that I was far and away the worlds fastest long distance runner.

If you are one of two characters above claiming this , I would only believe one but not the other.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Do you think all rape vicrims should be disbelieved until they produce physical evidence?

Again, you conflate skepticism with predetermined disbelief.
When you wanna have an actual discussion, let someone know.

We must believe every single miracle claim... for some reason.

 

[Atheos]

Fair enough response Learner. And at the risk of this starting to sound a bit too touchy-feely, I'll echo the sentiments. You seem to be a very decent and honorable character. The user name you have selected implies a desire to increase your understanding rather than assume you have access to some source of knowledge that precludes any input from other sources, a character trait I admire, and one which I hope I can say I share with you.

Your response is reasonable: You would not believe me capable of running on foot a distance of 92 miles at a rate of over 21 miles per hour. Either I am lying or delusional, and those who corroborate my story are also complicit or delusional. Since part of the terms of the original description is "unassisted" the input of any assistance (divine or otherwise) would render the story false.

I will make no apology for the fact that I am skeptical that any god such as is described in the bible exists. The existence of a life form that was never born, does not have to consume energy to sustain itself, does not have to learn anything in order to know everything, does not age, cannot ever die, wields unlimited power and never has to recharge its batteries is far more incredible than a mere human being capable of running 92 miles in 4.5 hours. After all, we know humans who can run at that speed and many human beings have run considerably greater distances without stopping. So this is only a matter of taking things that can be observed a bit further than they have ever been observed. Any one of the traits I just enumerated about the bible god is something that is completely outside any condition we have ever observed.

In spite of this I'm willing to be convinced. This same god would know exactly what it would take to overcome my skepticism. Providing me with that level of evidence would not in any way tamper with my free moral agency. Knowing such a god existed would not keep me from rebelling against it if I so chose. If "Doubting" Thomas had to see the nail prints for himself why do I have to accept such weak evidence, especially if an eternity of torture is at stake for my simple crime of skepticism? I flatter myself that I really am a nice person. My only crime is skepticism. I find this evidence uncompelling in every way possible. I can no more believe in Santa Claus than I can believe in this god. For this I am to be tortured for all eternity? I just don't get it.

 

[Learner]

Acknowledged Atheos and cheers for that and yes we share the above, There are things I know I must never do to make an argumentitive point.And that is to try and be devious or be dishonest especially on a forum of intelligent people (Im sure this goes for Lumpen and Lion ) I'm not always articulate in explaining at times, but I would be sussed out if I tried.. besides I wouldn't want to anyway even if could get away with it (not that it would be likely). And to confess it is the skeptics that keep me on my toes to evaluate sense even from a religious perspective. What may seem like arguing in debates doesn't make me have any less respect for anyone I am debating with. But yes .. putting aside my biased opinions on my particular faith, skepticism is a very valuable ethic exposing all that could be so wrong with faiths and beliefs. (biased view the fake ones lol)

Not sure what I could say here regarding hell's torment at this moment apart from that it was only mean't for fallen angels.

 

[Lion IRC]

Do you think all rape victims should be disbelieved until they produce physical evidence?

Again, you conflate skepticism with predetermined disbelief.

Nope. I know the difference. I'm just pointing out how similar they appear. The difference between them is a moot point if you are a rape victim and it boils down to your word versus that of your attacker.

Is there any miracle claim you would believe? Anyone you would trust?
Are you (pre)determined to look for alternative natural explanations for every supernatural claim?
As I said earlier, a skeptical person can think up an alternative explanation for ANY miracle or 'scientific' claim.

Atheos' Mongomery/Birmingham example nicely demonstrates the relationship between extraordinary claim and the motive a person has for making such a claim. Would Atheos continue to insist that the events actually happened even if being tortured?

In cases where it's just one person's word against another, why should the default position be that 'it' never happened?

Too often the non-theist skeptic (counter-apologist) dismisses everything by saying...there is no evidence, or...that's not evidence. They demand proof right before their very own eyes.

But the irony is that if and when they got what they asked for, no OTHER skeptic would take their word for it.

When you wanna have an actual discussion, let someone know.

When you want to end the discussion - just stop replying to my posts.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

A skeptic would acknowledge that in many cases, there is simply no explanation, and they would be comfortable with that.

 

[skepticalbip]

Again, you conflate skepticism with predetermined disbelief.

Nope. I know the difference. I'm just pointing out how similar they appear. The difference between them is a moot point if you are a rape victim and it boils down to your word versus that of your attacker.

Is there any miracle claim you would believe? Anyone you would trust?
Are you (pre)determined to look for alternative natural explanations for every supernatural claim?
As I said earlier, a skeptical person can think up an alternative explanation for ANY miracle or 'scientific' claim.

Atheos' Mongomery/Birmingham example nicely demonstrates the relationship between extraordinary claim and the motive a person has for making such a claim. Would Atheos continue to insist that the events actually happened even if being tortured?

In cases where it's just one person's word against another, why should the default position be that 'it' never happened?

This question is a very good example of what you are responding to, that you conflate skepticism with predetermined disbelief.

If there are two people making mutually exclusive claims with no evidence to support either then the only logical conclusion a skeptic can make is that they don't know which is telling the truth. That is a long way from "it didn't happen". Now in the case of a rape assertion, it is certainly possible because we all know that are rapes but a simple assertion is insufficient to convict someone. However if someone claims they witnessed something that violates known laws of nature then, though slightly possible, it is highly unlikely to be true. Do you really believe that Chris Angel can levitate? Thousands have seen him do it and many believe it is real because they "saw it with their own eyes". If you don't believe he can levitate then why since both he and some witness claim that he can?

 

[Lion IRC]

How can you tell the difference between skepticism and predetermined skepticism?

Both result in the same response - "I don't believe you"

And I never heard a predetermined skeptic openly/honestly declare that their mind was closed to the possibility of something outside naturalism. So whilst I agree that epistemologically they aren't exactly the same, I do assert that there not a whole lot of difference.

Stating that they are similar is NOT conflation.

 

[Lion IRC]

The methodological skeptic can declare..."that's not evidence" with just as much conviction as the plain old garden variety skeptic.

And if I wanted to, (but I dont and never have,) I could simply dismiss all skeptics of wilful ignorance and not being willing to accept anything as evidence - because secretly they hate the idea of God being true.

 

[skepticalbip]

How can you tell the difference between skepticism and predetermined skepticism?

Both result in the same response - "I don't believe you"

And I never heard a predetermined skeptic openly/honestly declare that their mind was closed to the possibility of something outside naturalism. So whilst I agree that epistemologically they aren't exactly the same, I do assert that there not a whole lot of difference.

Stating that they are similar is NOT conflation.

There you go doing it again. The original conflation was skepticism and predetermined disbelief. Now you change it to predetermined skepticism as though disbelief and skepticism are interchangeable - that is what is called conflation.

But you failed to answer whether or not you believe Chris Angel can levitate and why you believe as you do.

 

[Lion IRC]

There you go doing it again. The original conflation was skepticism and predetermined disbelief. Now you change it to predetermined skepticism as though disbelief and skepticism are interchangeable - that is what is called conflation.

I have already stated very plainly that I agree, predetermined skepticism and skepticism are not necessarily the same thing. And they not univocally interchangeable.

What I'm arguing is that it makes little difference WHY a person is skeptical if the nett result is that both state their disbelief when presented with assertions of fact.

A misogynist might disbelieve a female rape victim for one reason and jury of her peers might disbelieve her for an entirely different reason. But in both cases the result is the same - disbelief.

...you failed to answer whether or not you believe Chris Angel can levitate and why you believe as you do.

Who is Chris Angel and why should I care?

 

[Lion IRC]

Here's my version of skepticism.

Why should I think that someone (an atheist) living in the 21st century is in a better position to pass judgement on the events reported in the Gospel than people who were there?

Why should I be persuaded by a person whose disbelief might be motivated by a fundamentalist, methodological skepticism rooted in the all-or-nothing dogma of empirical evidence?

Why should I swallow the claims of science that random stuff happens spontaneously when it's equally plausible that an unidentified/invisible contingent cause may involved. Just because you can't see it in a microscope doesn mean its not there. If you always go fishing with a shark nett would you conclude that minnow fish are imaginary?

Why should I not believe in the existence of extra terrestrial life just because
....THERES NO $&@!#%!! EVIDENCE

The afterlife (that great unexplored world) is no less believable than a parallel universe so why should I let atheist skeptics tell me one is reasonable and the other is preposterous?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should I be persuaded by someone who tells me I'm evil for not believing or that I'm going to Hell? Why shouldn't I dismiss that as merely an abusive, manipulative belief system?

 

[Learner]

Why should I not believe in the existence of extra terrestrial life just because
....THERES NO $&@!#%!! EVIDENCE

I heard G.Galloway use a phrase which fits ; Absent of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence!

The afterlife (that great unexplored world) is no less believable than a parallel universe so why should I let atheist skeptics tell me one is reasonable and the other is preposterous?

As you already know, atheism is more a faith using the above phrase and we're both skeptical with some of the science theories.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have already stated very plainly that I agree, predetermined skepticism and skepticism are not necessarily the same thing. And they not univocally interchangeable.

Just bedamned. Yet it was predetermined denial that you are conflating with skepticism. Maybe you need to reference a dictionary.

What I'm arguing is that it makes little difference WHY a person is skeptical if the nett result is that both state their disbelief when presented with assertions of fact.

Give facts and you may have a point. Blind belief based on assertions is not facts.

A misogynist might disbelieve a female rape victim for one reason and jury of her peers might disbelieve her for an entirely different reason. But in both cases the result is the same - disbelief.

That is a nonsense argument technique called poisoning the well, as it mischaracterizes the argument.

...you failed to answer whether or not you believe Chris Angel can levitate and why you believe as you do.

Who is Chris Angel and why should I care?

Sorry that was Criss Angel. He is a man that claims to be able to levitate and there are thousands who have witnessed him doing it. Do you think this is a modern miracle just because many have claimed to witness it "with their own eyes" or do you automatically disbelieve the witnesses or are you skeptical that he actually levitates?

ETA:
Here, you can watch Criss perform his miracle, at least there are witnesses who honestly believe he livitates: