120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

This was new, because there had never before been any such evidence of someone showing such power as this. Though there were miracle claims, there had never before been any credible evidence. So, many people were won to the new belief, now based on evidence instead of only fables and superstition.

Again you repeat this lie.

Not necessarily a lie. Just Lumpy's embarrassing ignorance of any religion outside of the one he wants to believe in.

 

[Atheos]

Who's more dogmatic?

Question	Skeptics	Lumpenproletariat
How to explain miracle claims	People make stuff up all the time People believe many crazy things Miracles suspiciously similar to older Egyptian/Babylonian/Greek/Roman myths Possibly used magic tricks which were exaggerated later	Miracles!
How to explain popularity of Jesus cult	Marketing Appeal to poorer classes of people Core group of disgruntled Jewish people Many cults assimilated together over time	Miracles!
How to explain Jesus mentioned by Josephus?	Heard about Jesus from existing Christians Might have been historical cult leader with fanatical disciples Might have been a popular story with no historical basis Josephus was not a witness, only reporting what others claimed	Miracles!
How to explain stories being written so soon after events?	If events didn't actually happen, 'soon' is meaningless. Stories give evidence of gradual development over many years. Legends can develop in days or weeks, let alone decades.	Miracles!
Association with known historical figures like Pilate and JTB?	Historical fiction like Gone With the Wind Continued development of beliefs Possibly lived in same time frame, not enough evidence to say either way	Miracles!

 

[Keith&Co.]

All in all, you're still going at this ass-backwards, Lumpy.
To tell us what either all christains believed, or at least what all the early christains agreed upon, you'd need to show us all the various sects' scriptures.

What's available to us today is the compiled testaments. They were compiled to fit the theology that came out of the council of Nicea. Anything that disagreed with the theology agreed upon there was jettisoned. Quite a bit of it is not available to us today because jealous Christains went out and purposefully destroyed scriptures they didn't approve of.

Your shallow understanding of history does not enhance your efforts to tell us fanciful stories about what happened in history.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Were other Jesus-like miracle-workers erased from the historical record by Christian zealot conspirators?

(continued)
So the miracle stories abound, AFTER the Jesus event, when they seem to explode onto the stage. But what about before?

There's hardly any supply of these miracle-workers or miracle events in the mid-first century or earlier.

Christians have a history of stamping out the competition.

What's an example of this? Can you give evidence of documents before 100 AD being stamped out? or 200 AD?

Many of the gnostic gospels that we know about, we only know from their being named in letters written to report that they have destroyed all the copies of a gospel because it was gnostic, and that was not acceptable.

What letters? You've read one of them? Are you sure there are such letters?

I will pay a $100 donation to this message board, talkfreethought.org , if you supply one quote from any document of the period saying this. Just quote for us one of these "letters written to report that they have destroyed all the copies of a gospel because it was gnostic," and I will pay the donation.

I don't mind paying it.

I'll give you an easier challenge: All you have to do is give us one citation, any citation at all, as long as it's dated before 500 AD, and claim that it proves what you're saying here, even if it doesn't say such a thing at all. Just give us some quote, and claim it proves a Christian "destroyed all the copies of a gospel because it was gnostic," and I'll pay the $50 donation. It just has to be a legitimate document from the period, written before 500 AD.

Just say your quote demonstrates that Christians destroyed early documents (before 500 AD) which depicted other reputed "messiahs" or saviors or Christ-like historical figures who did miracle acts and who were rivals to Jesus. I.e., that they eliminated the evidence of other "messiahs" or miracle-workers etc. back then who resembled Jesus.

Or words to that effect, without any qualifier that you're only saying this to force me to cough up the $50 donation.

Just make the claim, give the citation, no matter how unrelated it really is, and I'll cough up the $50 donation without challenging the relevance of the quote.

Nothing to do with whether or not the author was known, or if the gospel was authentic or even true. It just didn't fit into their tender sensibilities as Christians.

Christians have defaced or destroyed pagan sites, monuments, records, stamped out stories, . . .

Destruction of pagan sites and monuments, yes. That you can supply evidence for. But what are the "records" or "stories" that were stamped out? What is the best example of this you can cite? We need some quote from an ancient source to substantiate this. Something prior to 500 AD.

. . . or changed them to fit inside the official Christian Narrative as much as they possibly could.

Changed them how? You mean they erased earlier stories they didn't like? stories about those Jesus parallels who were going around healing people? and so there were several reputed miracle-workers like Jesus, and documents reporting on them, similar to the gospel accounts reporting on Jesus? but all of them were destroyed by early Christians in order to make it look like their Christ was the only miracle-worker? when there were really several?

How do you know this? Who told you this? Why do you believe it?

Is this claim you're making any more credible than the claim by Creationists that all the evidence for evolution, such as fossil remains of dinosaurs, were really planted by God or by the Devil or by scientists or others in order to deceive humans into believing that evolution took place when it really did not? How is their conspiracy theory any less credible than your conspiracy theory that Christians destroyed all the evidence of the rival saviors and messiahs and Sons of God and miracle-workers who popped up the same as the Jesus Christ figure did?

Couldn't you prove virtually any wackadoodle theory you want by just saying that all the evidence for it was destroyed by someone conspiring to suppress that theory and mislead future generations? or that all the evidence against it was planted by a conspirator?

And they've rewritten history to make their favorite occult tradition the only one that matters.

What is the best example of this that you can give? No doubt there are some examples along this line, there having been billions of Christians among whom obviously some have misquoted or distorted some recorded history in order to strengthen their sermon and win over some converts. But what is the BEST example you can give of this? It would not likely demonstrate that there were other 1st-century miracle-workers competing with Jesus but who were erased from the record by Christian conspirators who shredded documents.

If it's from recent times only, then it hardly relates to our topic about the Christ person in 30 AD. Is there some rewriting of 1st-century history, from 1000 AD or earlier, which has been proved a fiction or forgery, or which shows how the Christ narrative is based on some early distortion of 1st-century history due to Christians rewriting the documents or tampering with them? What's the best example of this?

The Jesus myths did not 'explode' onto the historical record as you would have it.

The Jesus miracle accounts appear, in documents, in 50-100 AD. What other miracle accounts appear in the first century, other than these? And is there not then a wave of new miracle stories emerging AFTER 100 AD? i.e., the gnostic and apocryphal gospels? and others?

And isn't it true that there are NO such new stories appearing PRIOR to 50 (or 30) AD? What new miracle-workers appear in the period of 200 BC to 50 AD (other than the Jesus example)? Where are there any miracle healers appearing in this period? Where are there healing stories of someone, an historical figure, with this power and to whom the sick were brought for healing?

How is this not a sudden event, a sudden phenomenon of healing stories about one particular healer, who appears on the scene without any others doing the same thing? Were there others? Who were they? What is the record of them? How is this not a sudden appearance of a new kind of miracle story, if there were no others like them, which occurs this one time, from about 30 AD or soon after?

Where is there anything else, from this period, or 200-300 years earlier, which resembles this, or anticipates it, or leads up to it? Where is the pattern of such miracle events into which this Jesus person fits? I.e., a pattern of earlier events leading up to this Jesus narrative in 30 AD or soon after when it appears?

Where is the documentation of an historical person Asclepius, or Krishna, or other, who is recorded healing people and to whom the afflicted are brought? Can you quote from the account, beyond just saying it exists?

Christians peed on the historical record, much as you're insisting.

You mean the historical record before 500 AD? You mean they destroyed some of the historical record? How do you know this?

Do you mean there were other Jesus-like miracle-workers, reported in documents before 200 or 300 AD, and that these documents were destroyed by Christians? Where is the evidence that such documents were destroyed?

Except where you just ignore all the countering evidence, they actively burned books and scrolls . . .

You mean books and scrolls from before 500 AD? You mean there were numerous accounts of other 1st-century miracle-workers, and they were all destroyed by Christians? How do you know this? Give us a quote about that from the period. Just because your favorite modern Jesus-debunker makes these paranoid claims is not proof that it happened. Even if he has a PhD title.

The only library possibly burned by a Christian was that at Antioch, allegedly burned by the Christian emperor Jovian in 363 AD. This was a private library of the previous emperor Julian ("the Apostate"), and had earlier been a temple, which Julian converted into a library.

However, the only source for the burning of this library is a later 7th-century Christian, John of Antioch, and is of doubtful credibility for the event 300 years earlier.

Allowing that it might be true that this one private library was burned by a Christian, this is no indication that Christians had a habit of burning books, and especially that they destroyed early documents about rivals to Jesus who also performed miracles or were worshipped as "messiah" figures or deities etc. There were thousands of public and private libraries, and this is the only reported case of one being burned by Christians. (There is no claim, other than in modern times, that Christians ever burned the library at Alexandria.)

There was some back-and-forth persecutions or discriminations between the "pagan" worshippers and the increasing Christians as they opposed each other for power in Rome. There was virtually no targeting of books by either side, but rather, destruction of temples and statues, and subsidizing the state religion, exclusion of the outsiders from power, suppression of some ritual practices, and a few murders. No evidence of rewriting history or destroying records or scrolls.

The closest to any Christian book-burning, prior to 500 AD, is the strange incident of Acts 19:13-20, in which some Christians who had believed in magic burned their own books, repudiating their former beliefs. This was not a case of an emperor or pope ordering the book-burning, as it was the individual owners of some books choosing to do this.

Eventually there were Christian book-burnings, but not until centuries later, near the time of the Crusades and after, and nothing to suggest any attempt to destroy records from the first century. Although the Plato Academy was "closed" by Justinian, there's nothing to suggest that any books or scrolls were burned, and the truth is that this Academy was not really shut down permanently by Justinian. The adherents were dislocated for a time, but not suppressed, and the school was revived later.

Of course there was some suppression of heresies, but all these cases were of Christian sects or cults which worshipped Jesus in some manner, and nothing to suggest the worship of a different historical person than the Jesus of Galilee figure of 30 AD.

So the suppression that occurred was not that of suppressing any record of a Jesus rival miracle-worker who might have also been a reputed "Messiah" or "savior" or miracle-worker or "Son of God" or other deity hero resembling the Jesus Christ of 30 AD. Rather, some believers in this same Jesus of 30 AD were persecuted, even murdered, because of their differing belief, but it was the same Christ they believed in, not some other historical rival to Jesus or some Jesus parallel who was erased from the record due to book-burning.

So, where is there evidence of any rival Christ person, similar to the Jesus-healer we see in the gospel accounts? and whose record was suppressed by Christians in power? or by the Church? or by Christians BEFORE Constantine?

. . . and persecuted pagans . . .

Only some temples destroyed, and some political murders during the power struggles. But no books or scrolls destroyed, other than the goofy case in Acts 19 where some people ran and got their own books on magic and burned them. There's no evidence of any "pagan" Jesus-like miracle-worker to whom the afflicted were brought to be healed and who has been expunged from the historical record by crusading Christian zealots out to rewrite history to make their Christ the only miracle-worker in town.

When you say the Christians did these things, like book-burning and persecuting, why don't you ever refer to the original source for this? The book-burning is absent, and the murder of some pagans or destroying their temples has nothing to do with rewriting history or eliminating evidence of pagan deities or hero figures or miracle-workers who competed with Jesus.

. . . and outlawed languages so that the elders couldn't transmit their stories to new generations.

What?! Christians outlawed languages? What language did they outlaw? You mean Christians in 100-200 AD were outlawing languages so that those who believed in some other Jesus-like miracle-worker were unable to communicate their belief to anyone because their language became illegal?

And so this is why we have no reports of the other miracle-workers? Only the Jesus narrative survived because all the other god-heroes were suppressed by outlawing the language of those who believed in them? How does that work?

And so that's why we have no documents today about those alternative 1st-century miracle-workers? because the Christian Establishment wiped them all out, shredded all the documents, destroying every trace of them? even their language? When? you mean before 200 AD when there was no Christian Establishment?

Is this the only case in history where a new cult (or cults) totally wiped out documents from rival cults? destroying evidence of rival miracle-workers? or rival mythic heroes? if need be by outlawing the languages spoken by those rival cult followers? Was the new Jesus cult, or group of cults, the only one that wiped out all traces of rival cult leaders or mythic heroes? How did they accomplish this prior to 200 AD (or even 300) when they didn't yet have political clout?

Or even AFTER they took power in Rome, how could any religion, no matter how Established, achieve such a feat as this?

Even if it's true that some manuscripts were burned when temples were destroyed, this cannot explain how thousands of manuscripts were destroyed by crusading Christians to the point that some Jesus-like miracle-workers were erased from the historical record.

Can you go beyond the paranoid claims of this to providing some evidence for it, from documents dating back to before 500 AD?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Christians have a history of stamping out the competition.

What's an example of this? Can you give evidence of documents before 100 AD being stamped out? or 200 AD?

I'd probably go with the gnostic gospels which we only know of by name from the letters of the Christains who reported stamping them out.

Seriously, we've covered this before. You know fuck-all about the history of your own religion. So your pronouncements of how Christainity is unique in history just show more of your ignorance.

This is a primary reason to reject Christainity. The efforts the participants go to to pretend that any countering evidence is not trustworthy, while being actively gullible for the weirdest and weakest arguments as 'evidence' for the story they like.

 

[Perspicuo]

Who's more dogmatic?

Question	Skeptics	Lumpenproletariat
How to explain miracle claims	People make stuff up all the time People believe many crazy things Miracles suspiciously similar to older Egyptian/Babylonian/Greek/Roman myths Possibly used magic tricks which were exaggerated later	Miracles!
How to explain popularity of Jesus cult	Marketing Appeal to poorer classes of people Core group of disgruntled Jewish people Many cults assimilated together over time	Miracles!
How to explain Jesus mentioned by Josephus?	Heard about Jesus from existing Christians Might have been historical cult leader with fanatical disciples Might have been a popular story with no historical basis Josephus was not a witness, only reporting what others claimed	Miracles!
How to explain stories being written so soon after events?	If events didn't actually happen, 'soon' is meaningless. Stories give evidence of gradual development over many years. Legends can develop in days or weeks, let alone decades.	Miracles!
Association with known historical figures like Pilate and JTB?	Historical fiction like Gone With the Wind Continued development of beliefs Possibly lived in same time frame, not enough evidence to say either way	Miracles!

First, let me say, that's a nice rebuttal.
Second, please tell me you didn't go into all that trouble to just post it here where, in just a couple of months at most, it will be forgotten for all time.

I'm not trying to put you down, and I hope you keep up the handsome work... it's just that... well, when I post something I like over here, I save it from oblivion by blogging. I think a lot of great ideas on TFT should have the same good fortune.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's always good to believe the truth, even if you DON'T KNOW WHY it's the truth.

Belief IS trivial; All beliefs ARE as good as each other;

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --

And without the hard evidence, they are not true?

So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.

There are plenty of other examples of this principle.

E.g., the benefits or non-benefits of vitamins, or vitamin supplements, or megadoses of some vitamins.

Didn't Linus Pauling provide "hard evidence" of the benefits of megadoses of vitamin C as a cure or prevention of cancer? Didn't this Nobel-Prize-winning scientist have scientific proof, based on experiments and tests in which he verified the results?

What about the environment and the "facts" about global warming and CO2 emissions?

There is no "hard evidence" yet that CO2 emissions are causing some of the current bad weather conditions, but most environmentalists believe this is causing those bad weather conditions. So then this belief of most environmentalists is not true? Only when the "hard evidence" is produced will that belief become a fact? But for now, that belief is not true?

So the truth changes when "hard evidence" is produced? Before the "hard evidence," it's not true, but when that evidence is produced, then it becomes true?

So we should not act on any danger of global warming or excess CO2 emissions until the "hard evidence" is in? Until then, there is no danger, because it is not true that the danger exists until after the "hard evidence" is in, and all the "soft evidence" and common sense and good reasons for the fear should be ignored?

. . . at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.

So at a certain point the "hard evidence" is in and the truth changes. Those "beliefs" which before were not "facts" were not the truth, but then those beliefs turned into "facts" when the "hard evidence" was produced. Prior to the "hard evidence" that smoking was harmful, the truth was that it was not harmful. But then, at that point that the "hard evidence" was found, then the truth changed and smoking became harmful, whereas before then it did no harm -- right?

And likewise, with CO2 emissions, until the "hard evidence" is in, there is no harm from those CO2 emissions. None of these hurricanes and floods etc. are caused by global warming until the "hard evidence" is in that proves it, so we need not do anything about it, because it's only belief and not "facts" until we have the hard evidence.

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Of course.

What's an example of a false belief being just as a good as a true belief?

The true dichotomy is between "just belief" and "justified belief".

OK, there's a difference between 1) believing the truth and not having strong evidence or logic for the belief, and 2) believing the truth and having strong evidence or logic in support of one's belief. Yes, there's a difference.

BUT, it does not follow from this that true belief is no better than false belief. It is still better to believe the truth, even if you don't have all the evidence or logic in support of your belief.

True belief is good per se regardless whether you have it all figured out.

The example of lung cancer illustrates this. Probably many lives were saved because people believed that smoking causes lung cancer, even before the causal connection of smoking to lung cancer was proved with hard evidence.

Many who rejected this and believed the tobacco companies' research ended up dying from lung cancer. But many who believed in the link of smoking to cancer and thus resisted smoking ended up healthier because of this -- or it even saved their lives in some cases -- even though they did not have the hard evidence, and even believed this only because they were taught it in Sunday School.

Both in terms of practical benefit and also in terms of just believing the truth for its own sake, regardless of any practical outcome, there is a good in just believing the truth, regardless why you believe it.


A tale of 2 believers:

Believer #1 has a belief that is true; while

Believer #2 has a belief that is false.

Regardless of all else, Believer #1 has a good, or is experiencing a good or a value in life which Believer #2 is lacking.

Believer #2 might be smarter and more skeptical and have some good reasons for holding his belief while Believer #1 is dumber and less skeptical and has no good reasons for his belief other than that he was taught it by someone.

EVEN SO, there is a value or a good in Believer #1 holding that belief which is true, and on this one point -- his true belief vs. Believer #2's false belief -- Believer #1 is superior or has a superior experience or a superior state of mind to Believer #2.

Believer #2 might be superior in many other ways and can claim credit for his superiority or many superior accomplishments or merits or performance, but despite all that, Believer #1's true belief makes him superior in terms of the comparison of his true belief vs. Believer #2's false belief.

The true belief is always superior to the false belief, regardless of any other consideration, including how the believer came to hold the belief.

You can never know whether a belief is true or false, only whether it is justified or not.

No, for all practical purposes we often do know whether a particular belief is true or false.

And even when we don't know whether it's true or false, still it is the case that if your belief is true, you have achieved a good which you would be lacking if your belief were false. It is good that you hold that true belief regardless how you came to believe it, or regardless whether it is "justified" or not. It's good that you hold that true belief even if it's not yet determined that it is true. Regardless whether it's been determined or not, still, that belief is either true or it's not true. Even if we don't know it's true, still it might be true, and if it is, then it's good that you hold that belief. Even though the experts haven't yet decided that it's true.

If in addition to holding this true belief you also know why it's true or you can prove it with reasoning, then that's even better. Sure. But this does not negate the good of holding the true belief just for its own sake, i.e., pure true belief irrespective of how or why you believe it.

The more you know or understand the truth the better. But even if you understand nothing about it but just believe it and that's all, this is still a great good in itself.

And your example with smoking is just so wrong: it was known for a long time that smoking is harmful.

Perhaps it was known by some, but for many it was only an unjustified belief, based on little other than instinct or some kind of "common sense." Many believed it was harmful without having any real evidence or knowing anything other than that they were taught this. And many people just had a feeling that breathing in that smoke could only be harmful to the lungs, and it turns out they were right, but they had no empirical facts or data to base this on. They did not have the formal scientific findings upon which to base this. But their true belief benefited them anyway just as surely as it would have if they had known all the evidence.

It was good that they held this true belief even though their belief was not "justified" in the sense of having good evidence or facts to support their belief.

So it's good to "just believe" the truth, even if this belief is not "justified" but just happens to be true. There is such a thing as having a good simply out of sheer luck. They were lucky that someone indoctrinated them into believing this truth. They benefited from that truth and that indoctrination.

You can't take that good away from them by retorting that they didn't have a good reason to believe it, or that they didn't fully understand it or have a good explanation for it.

 

[Juma]

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Beliefs that are true are only able to claim the status of 'true' in the presence of hard evidence --

And without the hard evidence, they are not true?

So then, when some people believed that smoking was unhealthy, but it was not yet proved with evidence, that belief held by those people was NOT true? Their belief that smoking was unhealthy was a false belief?

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.

There are plenty of other examples of this principle.

E.g., the benefits or non-benefits of vitamins, or vitamin supplements, or megadoses of some vitamins.

Didn't Linus Pauling provide "hard evidence" of the benefits of megadoses of vitamin C as a cure or prevention of cancer? Didn't this Nobel-Prize-winning scientist have scientific proof, based on experiments and tests in which he verified the results?

What about the environment and the "facts" about global warming and CO2 emissions?

There is no "hard evidence" yet that CO2 emissions are causing some of the current bad weather conditions, but most environmentalists believe this is causing those bad weather conditions. So then this belief of most environmentalists is not true? Only when the "hard evidence" is produced will that belief become a fact? But for now, that belief is not true?

So the truth changes when "hard evidence" is produced? Before the "hard evidence," it's not true, but when that evidence is produced, then it becomes true?

So we should not act on any danger of global warming or excess CO2 emissions until the "hard evidence" is in? Until then, there is no danger, because it is not true that the danger exists until after the "hard evidence" is in, and all the "soft evidence" and common sense and good reasons for the fear should be ignored?

. . . at which point they cease to be 'beliefs' and become 'facts'.

So at a certain point the "hard evidence" is in and the truth changes. Those "beliefs" which before were not "facts" were not the truth, but then those beliefs turned into "facts" when the "hard evidence" was produced. Prior to the "hard evidence" that smoking was harmful, the truth was that it was not harmful. But then, at that point that the "hard evidence" was found, then the truth changed and smoking became harmful, whereas before then it did no harm -- right?

And likewise, with CO2 emissions, until the "hard evidence" is in, there is no harm from those CO2 emissions. None of these hurricanes and floods etc. are caused by global warming until the "hard evidence" is in that proves it, so we need not do anything about it, because it's only belief and not "facts" until we have the hard evidence.

So a false belief is just as good as a true belief?

Of course.

What's an example of a false belief being just as a good as a true belief?

The true dichotomy is between "just belief" and "justified belief".

OK, there's a difference between 1) believing the truth and not having strong evidence or logic for the belief, and 2) believing the truth and having strong evidence or logic in support of one's belief. Yes, there's a difference.

BUT, it does not follow from this that true belief is no better than false belief. It is still better to believe the truth, even if you don't have all the evidence or logic in support of your belief.

True belief is good per se regardless whether you have it all figured out.

The example of lung cancer illustrates this. Probably many lives were saved because people believed that smoking causes lung cancer, even before the causal connection of smoking to lung cancer was proved with hard evidence.

Many who rejected this and believed the tobacco companies' research ended up dying from lung cancer. But many who believed in the link of smoking to cancer and thus resisted smoking ended up healthier because of this -- or it even saved their lives in some cases -- even though they did not have the hard evidence, and even believed this only because they were taught it in Sunday School.

Both in terms of practical benefit and also in terms of just believing the truth for its own sake, regardless of any practical outcome, there is a good in just believing the truth, regardless why you believe it.


A tale of 2 believers:

Believer #1 has a belief that is true; while

Believer #2 has a belief that is false.

Regardless of all else, Believer #1 has a good, or is experiencing a good or a value in life which Believer #2 is lacking.

Believer #2 might be smarter and more skeptical and have some good reasons for holding his belief while Believer #1 is dumber and less skeptical and has no good reasons for his belief other than that he was taught it by someone.

EVEN SO, there is a value or a good in Believer #1 holding that belief which is true, and on this one point -- his true belief vs. Believer #2's false belief -- Believer #1 is superior or has a superior experience or a superior state of mind to Believer #2.

Believer #2 might be superior in many other ways and can claim credit for his superiority or many superior accomplishments or merits or performance, but despite all that, Believer #1's true belief makes him superior in terms of the comparison of his true belief vs. Believer #2's false belief.

The true belief is always superior to the false belief, regardless of any other consideration, including how the believer came to hold the belief.

You can never know whether a belief is true or false, only whether it is justified or not.

No, for all practical purposes we often do know whether a particular belief is true or false.

And even when we don't know whether it's true or false, still it is the case that if your belief is true, you have achieved a good which you would be lacking if your belief were false. It is good that you hold that true belief regardless how you came to believe it, or regardless whether it is "justified" or not. It's good that you hold that true belief even if it's not yet determined that it is true. Regardless whether it's been determined or not, still, that belief is either true or it's not true. Even if we don't know it's true, still it might be true, and if it is, then it's good that you hold that belief. Even though the experts haven't yet decided that it's true.

If in addition to holding this true belief you also know why it's true or you can prove it with reasoning, then that's even better. Sure. But this does not negate the good of holding the true belief just for its own sake, i.e., pure true belief irrespective of how or why you believe it.

The more you know or understand the truth the better. But even if you understand nothing about it but just believe it and that's all, this is still a great good in itself.

And your example with smoking is just so wrong: it was known for a long time that smoking is harmful.

Perhaps it was known by some, but for many it was only an unjustified belief, based on little other than instinct or some kind of "common sense." Many believed it was harmful without having any real evidence or knowing anything other than that they were taught this. And many people just had a feeling that breathing in that smoke could only be harmful to the lungs, and it turns out they were right, but they had no empirical facts or data to base this on. They did not have the formal scientific findings upon which to base this. But their true belief benefited them anyway just as surely as it would have if they had known all the evidence.

It was good that they held this true belief even though their belief was not "justified" in the sense of having good evidence or facts to support their belief.

So it's good to "just believe" the truth, even if this belief is not "justified" but just happens to be true. There is such a thing as having a good simply out of sheer luck. They were lucky that someone indoctrinated them into believing this truth. They benefited from that truth and that indoctrination.

You can't take that good away from them by retorting that they didn't have a good reason to believe it, or that they didn't fully understand it or have a good explanation for it.

Blah. Blah blah.... Walls of silly misunderstanding and outright lies.

You are cheating by using hindsite.

 

[DBT]

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

That belief that smoking was unhealthy was based on some "common sense" and some reasoning about the likely harmful effects on the lungs, but there was NO HARD EVIDENCE yet of the harmful effects.

Not a good comparison. Unlike the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable things written in our 'holy books' (all we have is the word of the writers) we always had the ability to observe for ourselves the negative effects of smoking on a smoker - reduced fitness levels, decreased lung function, coughing, poor complexion, etc, which is evidence that supported the idea that smoking is probably not a good thing in terms of human health.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are cheating by using hindsite.

Um.... You probably mean hindsight.

THIS is a hindsite.

And i think it's hilarious that he has actual evidence for his 'belief' that he can offer as a reason to accept his belief for which he has nothing in the way of evidence.
And that he's unable to see the irony in this.

That he's willing to believe things JUST because someone told him to is not a reason for us to accept bupkes from him. He probably also accepted authorities that told him not to swim for an hour after eating. Or that birds would reject offspring if you touched them. Or that humans have five senses...
The list of wrong things he accepted because he was told to is quite probably longer than the list of true-but-unevidenced things.

 

[jonJ]

If Lumpy's claims are correct, I have a great way to win at roulette:

Go into a casino with a friend and approach the roulette table. You guess what colour the ball will land on -- red or black -- and (here's the clever part), whatever you guess, your friend guesses the opposite. Now, it's got to be one or the other, so one of you is right, while the other is wrong. All you have to do then is figure out which of you is right, and put money on that colour. Presto, instant fortune!

Or is it clear to most people that being right by accident is no better than being wrong? Because a) you don't know you're right and b) there's nothing you can do with that knowledge. If there was, then having it wouldn't be an accident.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Belief in Christ = faith + reason + evidence + truth + justification + hope.

I was raised on that "false belief" which was preached at me in Sunday School, while there was yet no "hard evidence" that smoking was unhealthy. I'm glad I was taught that "false belief" and did not believe the scientific "facts" from the tobacco company scientists who assured us that there was no harm to health from smoking because they had the "hard evidence" to prove it.

Evidence also tells us that human beings tend to protect their own interests. Tobacco companies tend to ignore or deflect evidence in order to maintain their sales, religion ignores the fact that there is no evidence to support their core beliefs, . . .

In the case of the miracles of Jesus, there is evidence.

Though some religious beliefs are untrue, it is incorrect to say that there is "no evidence" to support any religious beliefs.

. . . the existence of their God or gods, yet maintains and teaches these faith-based beliefs as if they were justified truth.

Some "faith-based" beliefs ARE justified truth. Scientific knowledge is also "faith-based." Without faith there could be no science. That a belief is "faith-based" does not make it less true or less "justified."

Though "faith" and "reason" are different, they are not mutually exclusive or contradictory to each other. Belief in Christ is a combination of both faith and reason.

 

[DBT]

Evidence also tells us that human beings tend to protect their own interests. Tobacco companies tend to ignore or deflect evidence in order to maintain their sales, religion ignores the fact that there is no evidence to support their core beliefs, . . .

In the case of the miracles of Jesus, there is evidence.

Though some religious beliefs are untrue, it is incorrect to say that there is "no evidence" to support any religious beliefs.

. . . the existence of their God or gods, yet maintains and teaches these faith-based beliefs as if they were justified truth.

Some "faith-based" beliefs ARE justified truth. Scientific knowledge is also "faith-based." Without faith there could be no science. That a belief is "faith-based" does not make it less true or less "justified."

Though "faith" and "reason" are different, they are not mutually exclusive or contradictory to each other. Belief in Christ is a combination of both faith and reason.

You are using the word 'faith' way too loosely. Science gathers evidence through observation and testing...which is quite different to accepting the written word of unknown ancient authors as Gospel Truth.

You are equivocating 'faith' in order to justify a class of belief that is not - by definition - supported by evidence, as is the case with science: observation, experimentation, testing.


"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. - Hebrews 11:1


Faith;
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> (Merriam Webster)

 

[Atheos]

In the case of the miracles of Jesus, there is evidence.

And has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, this "evidence" is no better than the evidence that Atlas holds the sky on his shoulders, that Perseus flew on a winged horse, that Asclepius healed sick people, that Bacchus turned water into wine, that Medusa could turn men into stone statues if they looked at her or that creatures such as cyclops, centaurs and the Minotaur exist. These stories are unverifiable tales coming from anonymous sources for which there is not one ounce of physical evidence. Worse yet their credibility (even if they had any) is tainted by strong evidence that they were perpetrated by people attempting to spread their religious beliefs. Everything else is an appeal to popularity.

The evidence supporting the miracles of Joseph Smith is of higher quality by many orders of magnitude and rational people still reject it because it is still of poor quality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some "faith-based" beliefs ARE justified truth.

No, those are contradictory statements.

And you're still pretending that science can lead you to a superstitious belief.

Science is based on 'trust,' and the ability to verify someone's observations, not 'faith' that the observation is true.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is the Jesus Christ narrative the only one produced by the hope for a Messiah and for signs and wonders? Why no others, for which any evidence exists?

Gospels and Holy Books, narrative built upon oral tradition and hope for a Messiah, the Hero, the Savior, looking for signs and wonders within a natural progression of events . . .

This description of things held true in 1000 BC or in 700 or 500 or 300 BC just as much as in 30 AD. This could even describe human expectations in 2000 BC or even earlier.

. . . and finding what is being sought for based on foundation of faith.

What was sought for and found? When was it found? Where?

In 30 AD an historical figure appeared who showed the kind of power that would answer or fulfill some of the human hopes or seekings. But this seeking and expectation and hope was not peculiar to the 1st century AD.

If the seeking and hoping is the cause of the Christ miracle reports, why didn't that same seeking and hoping and "looking for signs and wonders" produce the "Messiah, the hero, the Savior" much sooner, and more often, in other places and times?

Where are the other reported miracle-worker heroes throughout these centuries, who should also have emerged as reputed historical figures in the literature of the time, reportedly displaying power like the Christ figure in Galilee and Judea in 30 AD?

If "finding what is being sought for" happens as a result of the wish or hope or seeking for it, and oral tradition, then why wasn't it found earlier, and why not in other places, everywhere in which the seeking and hoping took place and the oral traditions were prevalent?

If psychological or social or cultural elements are sufficient to produce the Messiah-hero-Savior figure, as a reputed historical person, without any such person actually existing, or existing but not really having the desired superhuman power, then the conditions for creating such a hero are present everywhere, in all times and places, and we should see hundreds of these saviors or heroes being created, and we should have hundreds of these reported Jesus-like messiahs in documents from the time, or from throughout ancient times up to 1000 AD or 1500 AD.

The smoke and mirrors of minds in denial of the reality of a vast and complex World.

But why did these deniers "of the reality of a vast and complex world" exist only from about 30-100 AD? And why did they all converge on this one Galilean from about 30 AD?

Why don't we see similar deniers "of the reality of a vast and complex world" putting out miracle legends going back for many centuries PRIOR to Jesus, and in other cultures and geographic regions?

We do see them? Where? Where are the documents attesting to their miracle legends? Where are the multiple accounts of those messiahs and saviors doing their miracles, being written and copied within 100 years or 50 years after the reputed miracle events were said to have happened?

Why is it that the only deniers "of the reality of a vast and complex world" are from the period of 50-100 AD only? or -150 AD? There are others? Who? When? Where? Name them. Quote from those documents attesting to these miracle-workers you say reportedly existed and had power like this Jesus Christ person had, or reputedly had, in about 30 AD.

Where are the "gospel" accounts about these other messiahs and saviors and heroes? Even if those alternative accounts are historically unreliable for factual content -- even so, where are they? Why is it that this Jesus Christ figure of 30 AD is the ONLY one for whom we have ANY accounts, i.e., multiple accounts, reliable or not?!

It's time to stop huffing and puffing about how these (NT Gospel) accounts are not credible for historical fact, and instead explain why there are NO OTHER similar accounts about all those other messiahs and saviors and heroes, perhaps also not credible but still which ought to exist because the "oral tradition and hope for a Messiah, the Hero, the Savior, looking for signs and wonders within a natural progression of events" conditions were there from which the Messiah-Savior-hero narrative was "built," i.e., the Christ narrative -- and these preconditions of hope and oral tradition etc. surely were present from 1000 BC or even earlier up through 100 AD and beyond, even to 1000 AD, so that we should have many similar Jesus-like Messiah narratives emerging during this period.

So WHERE ARE THOSE NARRATIVES? Why are they lacking? Why can't you name one?

Why is there only this one and no others?

And stop with the paranoid nonsense that the documents about all those other Messiahs and saviors and heroes were destroyed by the Christians! There's not a shred of evidence that any such documents were destroyed. What documents? Where's the evidence that Christians destroyed any documents from before 500 AD?

Where's the evidence that they burned down any libraries? from prior to 500 AD? There's no basis for these false document-shredding cover-up conspiracy theories. You can't name one early source indicating that Christians destroyed any documents or burned down libraries.

Stop swallowing all that pigslop fed to you by your favorite mythicist Jesus-debunker crusader and look up the documents/sources/evidence yourself and read them. There is no evidence of any such cover-up by the early Christians.

 

[DBT]

This description of things held true in 1000 BC or in 700 or 500 or 300 BC just as much as in 30 AD. This could even describe human expectations in 2000 BC or even earlier.

Just because things like prophesied Saviours are held to be true by the tradition that spawns them, does not necessarily make them true. They cannot all be true, given the wide range of religious beliefs that produce their own brand of Saviour and their own brand of God or gods.

What was sought for and found? When was it found? Where?

I was referring to the countless religions and gods that humankind has built temples to and worshiped throughout history.

In 30 AD an historical figure appeared who showed the kind of power that would answer or fulfill some of the human hopes or seekings. But this seeking and expectation and hope was not peculiar to the 1st century AD.

The promises that were made by the writers, eternal life, ultimate justice, reward and punishment are perennial elements, you can simply substitute this god for that, or this prophet for that prophet, but the carrot of reward and the stick of punishment remain the key elements to attract and keep believers within the fold of the faith.

If the seeking and hoping is the cause of the Christ miracle reports, why didn't that same seeking and hoping and "looking for signs and wonders" produce the "Messiah, the hero, the Savior" much sooner, and more often, in other places and times?

Where are the other reported miracle-worker heroes throughout these centuries, who should also have emerged as reputed historical figures in the literature of the time, reportedly displaying power like the Christ figure in Galilee and Judea in 30 AD?

There is a wide tradition of the miraculous and miracle workers throughout history.

Someone has even written (Not that agree with everything that the author has written, or his premises) an account of miracle workers in various religious traditions;

''The Prophet Muhammad miraculously produces food and water in the desert and blinds an opposing army with a handful of dust. Krishna lifts a mountain and thereby saves a village. The Buddha dazzles his kinfolk by rising in the air, dividing his body into pieces, and then rejoining them.''

''Also for the first time, I have brought together miracle stories of the great saints, sages, and spiritual masters revered in each tradition. Among them we will meet Talmudic wonder-workers like Hanina ben Dosa and Hasidic masters like the Baal Shem Tov; the early Christian hermit Saint Antony and Saint Francis, who bore the wounds of Christ; the early Sufi mystics, the Muslim female ascetic Rabi'a al-Adawiyya, and the martyr al-Hallaj; the classic Hindu saints like Shankara, Caitanya, and Mira Bai; and Buddhist saints from the earliest of the Buddha's disciples, like Moggallana, to the Tantric master Padmasambhava. The figures I have selected show us how miracles continued to accompany the spread of each religion. In this way, the saints themselves become figures in whom the Other that is God (or in Buddhism, the truth that is the Dharma) breaks through the mundane world, saturating it with meaning. Put another way, miracles disclose the whole of reality to those who can see only a part. ''

The Book of Miracles
The Meaning of the Miracle Stories in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam
By KENNETH L. WOODWARD

 

[Keith&Co.]

In 30 AD an historical\(1\) figure appeared who showed\(2\) the kind of power that would answer or fulfill some of the human hopes or seekings.\(3\) But this seeking and expectation and hope was not peculiar to the 1st century AD.

1. You haven't exactly proven his historicity. Just keep repeating it and ignore any problems with the claim.
2. Well, was alleged to show. Your efforts to prove his powers were real kinda falls on its sword.
3. But even if he was real, the character described didn't fulfill the requirements for the Jewish messiah, so the god-fearing Jews rejected him. Too bad.

 

[sdelsolray]

In the case of the miracles of Jesus, there is evidence.
...

Yes, weak, unsupported and non-repeatable "evidence".

Other than mere assertions in the Bible and the fact that those mere assertions are repeated by certain humans, is there any other evidence support your claim that there is evidence supporting the "miracles of Jesus"?

 

[Atheos]

In 30 AD an historical figure appeared who showed the kind of power that would answer or fulfill some of the human hopes or seekings. But this seeking and expectation and hope was not peculiar to the 1st century AD.

Wrong.

There is no evidence of a historical figure as you describe appearing and showing power in (or about) 30 AD.

There is evidence of the following:

• Around 55 AD a dude started claiming to be channeling a heavenly messenger named Jesus.
• Around 65 AD people started claiming this "Jesus" character had taken upon himself "The seed of Abraham"
• Around 70 AD, safely separated by 45 years and 1500 miles from the location in the story, an anonymous myth appeared featuring this character, associating him with John the Baptist and Pilate, and attributing to him miracles that had been traditionally associated with Roman and Greek god-men, such as healing diseases, controlling weather and holding power over death.
• Over the next several decades dozens of copycat myths featuring this character appeared, some placing the character in different historical time frames and nearly all of them adding more miracle details borrowed from Greek/Roman mythic traditions.

That is what we know. There is no evidence any of the miracles actually happened and worse yet there is no evidence the dude actually existed. Everything written about him is as consistent with an entirely fictional character as it is with a character about whom legends developed after his death.